background technical report: terrestrial and aquatic ... · rdrwa-background technical report:...

137
Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity Prepared for the Red Deer River Integrated Watershed Management Plan Prepared by: O2 Planning + Design Inc. (O2) Prepared for: The Red Deer River Watershed Alliance (RDRWA) in association with Alan Dolan Associates August 25 | 2014

Upload: ngominh

Post on 05-Jun-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Background Technical Report:

Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity Prepared for the Red Deer River

Integrated Watershed Management Plan

Prepared by: O2 Planning + Design Inc. (O2)

Prepared for: The Red Deer River Watershed Alliance (RDRWA) in association with Alan Dolan Associates

August 25 | 2014

August 25, 2014 Re: “Background Technical Report on Surface Water Quantity and Groundwater Resources” Dear reader, The Red Deer River Watershed Alliance (RDRWA) gratefully acknowledges O2 Planning + Design’s project team, who researched and wrote the appended report titled, “Background Technical Report on Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity.” O2’s work benefited greatly from the assistance of public and stakeholders, who took part in the consultation process, and from the involvement of members of the Technical Team, who contributed their time and advice at various stages in the preparation of this report. Alan Dolan, Alan Dolan & Associates, facilitated the community engagement process and chaired the Technical Advisory Committee and Technical Teams. The report is the fourth and final document in a series of Background Technical Reports that provide critical information for the development of the RDRWA’s Integrated Watershed Management Plan. Each of the Background Technical Reports is independently authored and the recommendations are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Watershed Alliance. During the public and stakeholder consultation process, overall response to the report was positive. A number of important technical comments were put forward at workshops and in an online response form. Members of the Technical Team, and the IWMP Project Management Unit reviewed the comments and provided advice to O2 Planning + Design. We thank NOVA Chemicals and Conoco Phillips for their generous financial contributions to RDRWA for the preparation of the Background Technical Report. A special thank you also goes out the RDRWA members, board members, volunteers and staff who have helped to guide the process to date and continue to support the Alliance. This report is available for downloading at www.rdrwa.ca Yours truly,

Jeff Hanger, Executive Director Chair, Project Management Unit Integrated Watershed Management Plan cc: RDRWA Board of Directors, Technical Team

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Red Deer River Watershed Alliance (RDRWA) is a multi-sector, non-profit organization that promotes watershed health and guides proper resource management in the Red Deer River watershed. Currently, the RDRWA is in the process of developing an Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP) for the Red Deer River basin. The IWMP requires an comprehensive and accessible process to integrate science, policy, and stakeholder and public participation in a flexible manner. The RDRWA and Alan Dolan and Associates commissioned O2 Planning + Design Inc. (O2) to prepare this Background Technical Report to support the development of the IWMP. The report focuses on developing draft indicators and targets for terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity in the Red Deer River Basin.

Purpose of this Report

This report provides a foundation for strategies related to terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity to protect and enhance the Red Deer River watershed. All information in this report is based on available data, and is intended for broad regional watershed-scale visioning purposes. Thus, site-specific applications should be conducted with caution and a scale effect should be considered. Targets are also expected to be refined over time following the framework of adaptive management.

Baseline conditions in the watershed were integrated and summarized using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping tools that facilitated specific draft targets for selected indicators. This report builds on and complements the information in the 2009 State of the Watershed Report, as well as previous Background Technical Reports in: i) water quality; ii) riparian areas, wetlands, and land use; and iii) surface water quantity and groundwater resources. The analysis relies on assembled spatially explicit data on species observations and the most current land cover data that could be compiled at this time. While anthropogenic footprint data is available at a very fine resolution, the natural cover classes are less refined. The present information should serve as a general assessment at the watershed scale, and would not be sufficient for fine-scale planning exercises.

Targets and management objectives must differ in a watershed in response to natural and spatial land use patterns. With this in mind, five watersheds were used as reporting units for terrestrial biodiversity following the RDRWA Background Technical Report on riparian areas, wetlands and land use approach. Criteria applied in defining the units included sub-watershed boundaries, natural regions and sub-regions, primary land management issues and land use patterns, and the location of water quality monitoring stations.

The reporting units for aquatic biodiversity were based on seven reaches as defined by the Background Technical Report: Draft Site-Specific Water Quality Objectives for the Red Deer River Basin with Emphasis on Main Stem. The reaches were delineated based on broad ecoregional changes, changes in land use, and the location of long-tem water quality monitoring stations. In addition to reaches, five lakes were included as complementary reporting units for aquatic biodiversity. The lakes were selected based on size—no background information for particular lakes was available in previous Background Technical Reports.

Recommended goals, indicators and targets are summarized below. The goals aim to be in close alignment with the latest draft of the Province of Alberta’s Biodiversity Management Framework as summarized for the South Saskatchewan Region. The report also outlines recommendations for improved monitoring and data acquisition, research needs, and key Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) for implementation.

The recommended draft goals for biodiversity are provided below:

Terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity (at all levels of diversity — genetic, species, habitat and ecosystems) are maintained

Species at risk are recovered

Key grasslands habitat is sustained

Key wetland complexes are retained and land uses surrounding them are managed according to best practices

Long-term forest ecosystem health and resiliency is monitored and maintained

Areas important for biodiversity are identified and assessed as potential designated conservation areas

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

ii

Biodiversity and healthy functioning ecosystems continue to provide a range of benefits and ecological services to communities in the region and the province

Key recommended draft indicators and targets for biodiversity are grouped in environmental, programmatic and social indicators. Key draft indicators are highlighted in orange:

Draft Environmental Indicators (key draft indicators are highlighted in orange) Indicator Target Notes

Amount of native land cover No net loss from current amounts, implementation of rangeland assessment protocol across the watershed

Recovery of previously disturbed grasslands unlikely, making the long term preservation of remaining natural grasslands a high priority

Percentage of total territory identified for conservation through land protection and land stewardship programs

At least 17 per cent of terrestrial areas and waterways in the watershed are conserved through networks of protected areas and other area-based conservation measures

The percentages of area protected are currently reported by the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) initiative (hereafter CESI indicators)

Total wetland area 100 per cent of existing natural wetlands are conserved or enhanced to sustain their ecosystem services, total wetland area in the watershed is increased

This aligns with new provincial wetland policy, and is a change from the Background Technical Report on Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Land Use (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013). Explore conservation tools such as mitigation banking

Degree of landscape connectivity

By 2020, develop a spatially explicit assessment of connectivity. Implement best practices to maintain connectivity on all private land

Requires a species specific assessment of fragmentation impacts

Nutrient concentrations of rivers, streams and lakes

By 2020, implement the narrative statements developed for nutrient levels as in Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters (Alberta ESRD, 2014). Spatially explicit data is made easily accessible to the public

This is a CESI indicator and Alberta ESRD has a comprehensive monitoring system in place. Increases in nutrient concentrations can result in increased growth of opportunistic species, lowering the diversity of communities present, and reducing the value of habitat.

Species at risk population trends

Species at risk listed under federal law meet the recovery objectives of federal and provincial strategies

Data on population trends are extracted from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessments and the General Status of Alberta Wild Species reports

Number and location of invasive alien species in the RDRW

Development of an invasive species management program, including definition and identification of pathways of invasive alien species introductions, and a risk-based intervention plan for priority

Requires collaboration with provincial programs such as the Alberta Invasive Species Council

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

iii

Indicator Target Notes

pathways and species

Area and number of important and representative species habitats

Selection and ranking of appropriate keystone and indicator species to allow for species prioritization and spatially explicit identification of key habitat

Systematic gap analysis will be essential to target conservation effort

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

iv

Draft Programmatic Indicators (key draft indicators are highlighted in orange) Indicator Target Notes

Centralized, comprehensive monitoring and inventory program

RDRW has established a comprehensive inventory of protected spaces that includes private conservation areas, and an ongoing methodology for assessing their significance and value

Mainly driven by the province, ABMI and AEMERA

Number of commercial operations that incorporate sustainable forest management practices

The suite of indicators in the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) Criteria and Indicators (C&I) Framework is actively used to inform management decisions

Coordination between Canadian Forest Service, Alberta ESRD, Foothills Research Institute, and the forestry industry

Number of commercial operations that incorporate sustainable rangelands management practices

Rangeland assessment protocol is implemented and grazing is actively managed across the watershed to maintain healthy grasslands

Coordination between CPAWS, private land owners, and government agencies will be required

Number of commercial operations that incorporate sustainable farmland management practices

≥ 50 percent of farms adopt sustainable farmland management practices, and provide an increased contribution to biodiversity and habitat quality

Preparation of Environmental Farm Plans does not guarantee improved practices or positive effects on biodiversity. BMPs related to biodiversity would rely on data from the province

Number of commercial operations that incorporate sustainable aquaculture management practices

≥ 50 percent of all aquaculture operations adopt best management practices to reduce impacts on aquatic biodiversity

This indicator would require baseline research to assess current conditions

Number of land use and development plans that consider climate adaptation

Frameworks for monitoring and long term trend analyses are in place, explicitly incorporating adaptive management into watershed and regional planning

Requires collaboration with broader monitoring and management groups, latitudinal coordination in response to changing growth conditions

Motorized access to public land

Existing uses are identified and compiled in a spatial inventory. Recreational activities are clustered away from sensitive areas and access restrictions are installed. Public education on potential impacts is in place

Public participation necessary to establish preferred areas for recreation

Extent and duration of linear disturbances

A comprehensive reclamation program is in place whereby existing disturbed areas, priorities, and actions are defined. Best practices for future disturbances are established

Project specific, long term assessment of impacts. Requires industry participation and project approval conditions. Best practices must be habitat specific.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

v

Indicator Target Notes

Number of licenses with water conservation objectives (WCO)

Existing management plans for water licensing incorporate river flow WCO that scientifically determine sustainable natural aquatic ecosystems over the long term

Incorporate the estimated effects of river flows on the aquatic environment of the Red Deer River as developed by Goater et al. (2007)

Stream continuity Best management practices are established for stream crossings. Multiple disturbances are concentrated to one area. High quality stream habitat is avoided

Requires assessment of stream function prior to disturbance

Natural disturbance intensity, frequency and extent

A toolbox of BMPs with disturbances that mimic natural succession regimes is developed. Areas with homogeneous age structures are identified

With reference to historic patterns of disturbance, but may be influenced by changing environmental conditions (i.e., drought cycles, etc)

Number of ecosystem goods and services that are actively monitored and valued

Implementation of anecosystem goods and services valuation program

Community and industry focus, cross-sector collaboration

Number of land management plans that incorporate biodiversity conservation strategies

All future land management plans explicitly incorporate biodiversity management frameworks

Municipality focus, requires cross-sector support and involvement of RDRWA. Indicators rely on the cooperation of all jurisdictions to review and report progress.

Incorporation of national and provincial biodiversity indicators with regional planning frameworks

RDRW Integrated Watershed Management Plan includes language which aligns with broader Red Deer and South Saskatchewan regional frameworks

Broad scale, community focus. Existing and proposed indicators do not address traditional or community knowledge. It is important to explore the possibility of developing an appropriate indicator for traditional knowledge, which involves discussions with Aboriginal Organizations

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

vi

Draft Social Indicators (key draft indicators are highlighted in orange) Indicator Target Notes

Degree of public participation in monitoring and preservation of biodiversity

Citizen science programs are designed and implemented. Public participation in environmental monitoring activities is encouraged. Information on biodiversity is distributed

Standardized monitoring programs require sound scientific and statistical methods to ensure that observations are stratified, and that observer effort is accounted for

Number of schools that have biodiversity activities in their curricula

Biodiversity is explicitly incorporated into all elementary and secondary school curricula

Combined effort between the RDRWA and Alberta Education

Percentage of RDRW residents who report that they take action to protect their watershed

An increase in participation of watershed residents in biodiversity conservation activities. Increase in public engagement events within the watershed.

RDRW co-ordinate with surveys such as the Households and the Environment Survey

Public perception of biodiversity value

Publish and distribute educational material that results in increased public understanding of the valuation of natural capital and the economic costs of environmental degradation.

Outreach efforts must be targeted across a broad demographic range, urban rural gradient, age and education

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................................... x LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................... xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. xii

1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................1

1.1 STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................1 1.2 TECHNICAL INPUT ............................................................................................................................................2 1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................2

2. OUTCOMES, INDICATORS, TARGETS, AND REPORTING UNITS ............................................................3

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS ...........................................................................................................................3 2.2 PROGRAMMATIC AND SOCIAL INDICATORS..........................................................................................................3 2.3 APPROPRIATE REPORTING UNITS.......................................................................................................................3

2.3.1 Terrestrial Units .......................................................................................................................................3 2.3.1.1 Natural Delineations .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3.1.2 Human Usage Delineations .............................................................................................................................. 4

2.3.2 Aquatic Units ...........................................................................................................................................6 2.3.2.1 Reaches ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.3.2.2 Lakes ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.3.3 Riparian Areas .........................................................................................................................................7 2.4 SCALE AND GEOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................8 2.5 TARGETS, RISKS, AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................8 2.6 TARGETS AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSES ..........................................................................................................8

3. APPROACHES TO ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY ........................................................................................10

3.1 CLASSIFICATION OF BIODIVERSITY ...................................................................................................................10 3.1.1 Genetic Diversity ...................................................................................................................................10 3.1.2 Species Diversity ...................................................................................................................................11 3.1.3 Ecosystem Diversity ..............................................................................................................................11 3.1.4 Hierarchical Characterization of Biodiversity .........................................................................................11

3.1.4.1 Compositional diversity .................................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.4.2 Structural diversity .......................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.4.3 Functional Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................13 3.3 STATUS OF BIODIVERSITY ...............................................................................................................................16

3.3.1 Global ....................................................................................................................................................16 3.3.2 Canada ..................................................................................................................................................17 3.3.3 Alberta ...................................................................................................................................................19 3.3.4 Red Deer River Watershed ....................................................................................................................20

3.4 MONITORING OF AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY ...............................................................................21 3.4.1 Canada ..................................................................................................................................................21 3.4.2 Alberta ...................................................................................................................................................21 3.4.3 Red Deer River Watershed ....................................................................................................................22

3.5 INDICATORS OF BIODIVERSITY .........................................................................................................................23 3.5.1 Importance ............................................................................................................................................23 3.5.2 Hierarchical Framework .........................................................................................................................23

3.5.2.1 Planning for Biodiversity Management: the Notion of Patterns and Scale in Biodiversity .............................. 24 3.6 METRICS OF DIVERSITY ...................................................................................................................................25

3.6.1 Land Cover Diversity .............................................................................................................................25 3.6.2 Wetland Complexes ..............................................................................................................................27 3.6.3 Species Richness ..................................................................................................................................27 3.6.4 Slope .....................................................................................................................................................27 3.6.5 Land Cover Change ..............................................................................................................................28 3.6.6 Riparian Disturbance .............................................................................................................................28 3.6.7 Landscape Intactness ...........................................................................................................................29

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

viii

4. TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY ....................................................................................................................30

4.1 NATURAL REGIONS AND SUB-REGIONS ............................................................................................................30 4.1.1 Rocky Mountain Natural Region ............................................................................................................30

4.1.1.1 Alpine Sub-region ........................................................................................................................................... 30 4.1.1.2 Subalpine Sub-region ..................................................................................................................................... 31 4.1.1.3 Montane Sub-region ....................................................................................................................................... 31

4.1.2 Foothills Natural Region ........................................................................................................................31 4.1.2.1 Upper Foothills Sub-region ............................................................................................................................ 32 4.1.2.2 Lower Foothills Sub-region ............................................................................................................................. 32

4.1.3 Boreal Forest .........................................................................................................................................32 4.1.3.1 Dry Mixedwood Sub-region ............................................................................................................................ 32 4.1.3.2 Central Mixedwood Sub-region ...................................................................................................................... 33

4.1.4 Parkland Natural Region ........................................................................................................................33 4.1.4.1 Central Parkland Sub-region .......................................................................................................................... 33 4.1.4.2 Foothills Parkland Sub-region ........................................................................................................................ 34

4.1.5 Grassland Natural Region .....................................................................................................................34 4.1.5.1 Northern Fescue Sub-region .......................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.5.2 Foothills Fescue Sub-region ........................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.5.3 Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region ............................................................................................................................ 35 4.1.5.4 Mixedgrass Sub-region .................................................................................................................................. 35

4.2 LAND COVER .................................................................................................................................................35 4.2.1 Compiled Land Cover ...........................................................................................................................35

4.3 WETLAND COMPLEXES ...................................................................................................................................39 4.4 SPECIES ........................................................................................................................................................42

4.4.1 Species Richness ..................................................................................................................................42 4.4.2 Species at Risk ......................................................................................................................................45

4.5 TERRAIN CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................................................45 4.6 RECENT CHANGE IN LAND COVER ...................................................................................................................48 4.7 RIPARIAN DISTURBANCE .................................................................................................................................49 4.8 LANDSCAPE INTACTNESS ................................................................................................................................51

5. AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................................................................55

5.1 FISH ..............................................................................................................................................................55 5.2 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES ................................................................................................................................55 5.3 LAKE STATUS ................................................................................................................................................56

5.3.1 Sylvan Lake ...........................................................................................................................................56 5.3.1.1 Hydrology and Chemistry ............................................................................................................................... 56 5.3.1.2 Aquatic Biology .............................................................................................................................................. 56 5.3.1.3 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................. 56 5.3.1.4 Management ................................................................................................................................................... 57

5.3.2 Gull Lake ................................................................................................................................................58 5.3.2.1 Hydrology and Chemistry ............................................................................................................................... 58 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Biology .............................................................................................................................................. 58 5.3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................. 59 5.3.2.4 Management ................................................................................................................................................... 59

5.3.3 Buffalo Lake ...........................................................................................................................................59 5.3.3.1 Hydrology and Chemistry ............................................................................................................................... 60 5.3.3.2 Aquatic Biology .............................................................................................................................................. 60 5.3.3.3 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................. 60 5.3.3.4 Management ................................................................................................................................................... 60

5.3.4 Gough and Sullivan Lakes .....................................................................................................................61 5.4 LAND COVER SURROUNDING RIVER REACHES ..................................................................................................61 5.5 SPECIES ........................................................................................................................................................62

5.5.1 Species Richness ..................................................................................................................................62 5.5.2 Species At Risk .....................................................................................................................................65

5.6 TERRAIN CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................................................65 5.7 LANDSCAPE INTACTNESS ................................................................................................................................67

6. TOOLS AND CHALLENGES FOR BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT ..........................................................70

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

ix

6.1 SYNTHESIS OF CURRENT POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES .............................................................................70 6.1.1 Parks/Protected Areas ..........................................................................................................................70

6.1.1.1 Prescribed Burns in Protected Areas ............................................................................................................. 70 6.1.2 Local policies .........................................................................................................................................71 6.1.3 Regional Planning..................................................................................................................................71 6.1.4 White and Green Areas .........................................................................................................................71 6.1.5 East Slope policy ...................................................................................................................................72 6.1.6 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................73 6.1.7 Actual Presence of Biodiversity in Current Policies or Management Plans ..........................................73 6.1.8 Navigation Protection Act (Formerly Navigable Waters Protection Act) ...............................................74 6.1.9 Fisheries Act ..........................................................................................................................................75

6.2 KEY BIODIVERSITY ISSUES ..............................................................................................................................75 6.2.1 Habitat Loss and Connectivity Issues ...................................................................................................75 6.2.2 Invasive Alien Species ...........................................................................................................................76 6.2.3 Land Cover Health .................................................................................................................................77 6.2.4 Climate Change and Extreme Events ....................................................................................................77 6.2.5 Wetlands health .....................................................................................................................................79 6.2.6 Water Quality .........................................................................................................................................79

6.2.6.1 Reaches .......................................................................................................................................................... 79 6.2.7 Lakes .....................................................................................................................................................80 6.2.8 Water Quantity .......................................................................................................................................80

6.3 DRAFT GOALS FOR TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY ...........................................................................81 6.4 DRAFT INDICATORS AND TARGETS FOR TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY ...............................................82 6.5 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................87

6.5.1 Reporting Units .....................................................................................................................................87 6.5.2 Future Needs .........................................................................................................................................88

6.5.2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Research Synthesis ................................................................................ 89 6.5.2.2 Research Needs ............................................................................................................................................. 89

6.5.3 Beneficial Management Practices .........................................................................................................90 6.5.3.1 General BMPs ................................................................................................................................................. 91 6.5.3.2 Urban and Country Residential BMPs ............................................................................................................ 91 6.5.3.3 Lakeshore/Lake Front Recreational and Residential Development BMPs ..................................................... 91 6.5.3.4 Agriculture BMPs ............................................................................................................................................ 92 6.5.3.5 Oil and Gas BMPs .......................................................................................................................................... 93 6.5.3.6 Recreation BMPs ............................................................................................................................................ 93 6.5.3.7 Education BMPs ............................................................................................................................................. 93

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 94 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................... 102 APPENDIX A: Terrestrial Unit Species List ................................................................................................................ 104 APPENDIX B: Lake Unit Species List. ....................................................................................................................... 113 APPENDIX C: Reach Unit Species List. .................................................................................................................... 116

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Defined Reporting Units ........................................................................................................................................................... 5Figure 2. Compositional, Structural, and Functional Biodiversity, Shown as Interconnected Spheres, Each Encompassing Multiple Levels of Organization. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12Figure 3. Examples of Biodiversity Components and Attributes (Vold & Buffet, 2008) ..................................................................................... 13Figure 4. The Four Categories of Ecosystems Services - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report (2005). ................................................ 14Figure 5. Boreal Ecosystem Services Value Accounts (Anielski & Wilson, 2005). ............................................................................................. 15Figure 7. Comparison of 2000, 2005 and 2010 General Status of Alberta Wild Species (Alberta ESRD, 2011b). ........................................... 20Figure 8. Comparison of 2000, 2005 and 2010 General Status of Canada’s Wild Species (Alberta ESRD, 2011b). ........................................ 20Figure 9. Hierarchical Framework Used to Classify Aquatic Biodiversity (Groves et al., 2002). ....................................................................... 25Figure 10. Land cover in the Red Deer River Watershed Compiled from Central Parkland Vegetation Inventory, Grasslands Inventory, Geobase Land cover and ABMI Wall to Wall Land Cover Data. ....................................................................................................................... 37Figure 11. Land Cover Classes Across Terrestrial Reporting Units. ................................................................................................................. 39Figure 12. Wetland Complex Area (km2) in the Red Deer River Watershed. ..................................................................................................... 41Figure 13. Species Richness Across Terrestrial Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed ................................................................ 44Figure 14. Map of Steep Slopes Across Terrestrial Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed. .......................................................... 46Figure 15. Percentage Area of Slope Classes Across Terrestrial Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed. ..................................... 47Figure 16. Time Series of Land Cover Change Using MODIS 12Q1 Products. Each Panel Number Refers to a Terrestrial Reporting Unit. .. 48Figure 17. Distribution of Change in Land Cover Classes in the Red Deer River Watershed for the Years 2006 and 2011. The Reference Year was the 2001 MODIS 12Q1 Land Cover Tiles. Numbers Refer to Terrestrial Reporting Units. ........................................................................ 49Figure 18. Map of Human Disturbed Riparian Areas Across Terrestrial Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed. ........................... 50Figure 19. Percentage of Natural and Non-natural Riparian Area Across Terrestrial Reporting Units. ............................................................. 51Figure 20. Map Intactness of Natural Cover in the Red Deer River Watershed. ............................................................................................... 53Figure 21. Percentage of Landscape Intactness Classes (km2) Across Terrestrial Reporting Units. ................................................................ 54Figure 22. Percentage of Land Cover Classes Across Lake Reporting Units With a 1 km Buffer. ................................................................... 57Figure 23. Percentage of Land Cover Classes Across Reach Reporting Units With a 1 km Buffer. ................................................................ 62Figure 24. Map of Species Richness Across Aquatic Units (i.e., Reaches and Lakes) in the Red Deer River Watershed. .............................. 64Figure 25. Percentage Area of Slope Classes Across Lake Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed. ............................................. 66Figure 26. Percentage Area of Slope Classes Across Reach Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed. ........................................... 67Figure 27. Percentage of Landscape Intactness Classes (Km2) Across Lake Reporting Units With a 1 km Buffer. ........................................ 68Figure 28. Percentage of Landscape Intactness Classes (km2) Across Reach Reporting Units with a 1 km Buffer. ....................................... 69

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Reporting Units: Watershed-Based Landscape Units (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013a) .................................................................. 6Table 2. Main Provincial Sources of Biodiversity Data Grouped by Biodiversity Indicator. .............................................................................. 22Table 3. Summary of Biological indicators and Metrics for the Red Deer River Watershed (Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2008). 23Table 4. Indicator Variables for Inventorying, Monitoring, and Assessing Terrestrial Biodiversity at Three Levels of Organization: Compositional, Structural, and Functional Attributes (Noss, 1990). ................................................................................................................. 24Table 5. Land Cover Crosswalk Between Original Cover Classes. ................................................................................................................... 26Table 6. Land Cover Types Description. ........................................................................................................................................................... 28Table 7. Percentage of Coverage of Natural Sub-Regions per Reporting Unit. ................................................................................................ 30Table 8. Distribution of Land Cover Classes Across the Red Deer River Watershed. Land Cover Stratified per Terrestrial Reporting Unit. .. 38Table 9. Number of Wetlands and Associated Complexes on Each Terrestrial Reporting Unit in the Red Deer River Watershed. The Ratio Indicates the Total Number of Wetlands (per Reporting Unit) Divided by the Total Number of Wetland Complexes; The Larger the Ratio the More Spatially Sparse the Wetlands. ................................................................................................................................................................ 40Table 10. Taxonomic Richness by Terrestrial Reporting Unit ........................................................................................................................... 43Table 11. Relative Percentage of Intact Area in The Landscape per Reporting Unit, Based on the ABMI Human Footprint Layer. RDRW = Red Deer River Watershed. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 52Table 12. Species Richness of Major Lakes. ..................................................................................................................................................... 63Table 13. Species Richness of River Reaches. ................................................................................................................................................. 63Table 14. Species At Risk By Lake and River Reach Units. .............................................................................................................................. 65Table 15. Key Aspects of White and Green Areas in Alberta (GOA, 2008a)...................................................................................................... 72Table 16. Instream Flow Needs to Maintain Adequate Water Quality for the Protection of Mainstem Fisheries Have Been Determined for Most of the Red Deer River (Clipperton et al., 2003) ......................................................................................................................................... 81Table 17. Draft Environmental Indicators (k ...................................................................................................................................................... 83Table 18. Draft Programmatic Indicators (k ....................................................................................................................................................... 85Table 19. Draft Social Indicators (k .................................................................................................................................................................... 87Table 20. Significant Characteristics and Potential Challenges for Reporting Units Used in this Report. ....................................................... 88Table 21. Biodiversity Parameters in the RDRW. .............................................................................................................................................. 89Table 22. Additional Biodiversity Indicators for the RDRW. .............................................................................................................................. 90

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared by O2 Planning + Design Inc. The following individuals are acknowledged for contributing writing, editing, mapping, analysis, and graphics for this draft: Pablo Pina Poujol, Leif Olson, Jen Barker and Caitlin Smith. The following individuals are acknowledged for their input on key issues, reports, and data sources, providing great help in shaping the contents of this draft: Alan Dolan, Anne-Marie Anderson, Al Soziak, Kate Wilson, Michael Sullivan, Don Wales, Jim Herbes, David Johnson, Lindsay Stephens, Kelsey Kure, Tara Bernat, Richard Laing, Jasmine Janes, Richard Carson, and Francine Forrest.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

1

1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

The Red Deer River Watershed Alliance (RDRWA) is a multi-sector, non-profit organization that promotes watershed health and guides proper resource management in the Red Deer River watershed. In 2005, the RDRWA was granted the status of the Watershed Planning and Advisory Council (WPAC) by Alberta Environment as part of the province's "Water for Life" initiative. The fundamental goal of the Water for Life Strategy (GOA, 2008b) is to ensure sustainable management of the province’s water resources so Albertans are assured of:

Safe and secure drinking water supply

Healthy aquatic ecosystems

Reliable quality water supplies for a sustainable economy

As indicated in Alberta's Water for Life Strategy, WPACs are responsible for “leading watershed planning, developing best management practices, fostering stewardship activities within the watershed, reporting on the state of the watershed and educating users of the water resource.”

In 2009, the RDRWA released its State of the Watershed Report (SOW) (Aquality, 2008). Currently, the RDRWA is in the process of developing an Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP) for the Red Deer River basin that transforms the information in the SOW report into a planning process that will establish desired outcomes, indicators and targets.

The terms of reference as approved by the RDRWA Board of Directors state that the objectives of the IWMP are:

To set targets and thresholds for land use, biological, and water quantity indicators as reported in the State of the Watershed Report

To work out mutually acceptable solutions with stakeholders for the protection, restoration, and/or maintenance of the health of the individual sub-watersheds as well as the Red Deer River watershed as a whole through the process of identifying targets and thresholds

To make recommendations such as Beneficial Management Practices, market-based instruments, monitoring strategies, and future research priorities that may eventually be reflected in policies

To provide information and guidance to stakeholders in developing their action plans to implement the recommendations of the IWMP

To provide decision-makers with the relevant information specific to the Red Deer River watershed essential for its effective protection, restoration, and/or maintenance as a healthy watershed

1.1 Study Scope and Objectives

The RDRWA’s vision is that the IWMP will help to achieve or exceed requirements under government regulations. Moreover, management efforts will be directed towards maintaining high quality natural habitat where it exists, while improving conditions where they have deteriorated because of human activities. The RDRWA has commissioned three background reports to date to support the development of the IWMP that collectively aims to provide a solid scientific basis for the IWMP, which ultimately will help meet the RDRWA’s vision:

“The Red Deer River Watershed will be healthy, dynamic and sustainable through the efforts of the entire community.”

The first Background Technical Report for the IWMP focused on surface water quality, and was completed in early 2012 (Anderson, 2012). The second Background Technical Report summarized information on surface water quantity and groundwater resources (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013a); the third Background Technical Report addressed the topics of land use, riparian areas, and wetlands

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

2

(O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013b). This study constitutes the fourth Background Technical Report, and addresses the topics of Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity. All IWMP components are intimately related and consistent links and interrelationships among the different topic areas will be critical for crafting a successful IWMP.

This document aims to:

Ensure that the state of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity is comprehensively described and mapped using the best available information and data

Define outcomes, propose indicators, and suggest potential targets for managing terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity in the basin at multiple scales

Build on and complement the information in the State of the Watershed Report (Aquality, 2008) as well as the first, second, and third Background Technical Reports

1.2 Technical Input

The RDRWA expanded its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) by assembling additional Technical Team members who were consulted for their expertise in terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, and familiarity with the Red Deer River basin. Engagement and input from the Technical Team took the form of an on-line survey, distributed in March 2014. The Technical Team also reviewed the first draft of this report and made valuable suggestions for improvement.

1.3 Report Structure

This report is structured as a series of chapters.

Chapter 1: Introduction provides an introduction to the context and scope

Chapter 2: Outcomes, Indicators, and Targets provides some additional background information on outcomes, indicators, targets, and risk management in a watershed planning process

Chapter 3: Fundamentals of Biodiversity focuses on key concepts, definitions, metrics, services, and overall global, regional, and local status pertaining to biodiversity

Chapters 4: Terrestrial Biodiversity: focuses on background information and baseline data related to terrestrial biodiversity

Chapter 5: Aquatic Biodiversity focuses on background information and baseline data related to aquatic biodiversity.

Chapter 6: Recommendations focuses on draft targets for indicators, and recommendations for monitoring and data acquisition, research needs, and suggested Beneficial Management Practices for different stakeholder and industry groups.

Appendix 1 contains the compiled species occurrence information for each of the identified reporting units.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

3

2. OUTCOMES, INDICATORS, TARGETS, AND REPORTING UNITS

Outcomes, indicators and targets are important tools that enable the effective synthesis of information on the many complex, interrelated variables that characterize watersheds. Indicators are critical to measure an organization’s progress towards achieving its vision, as well as specified outcomes and goals. This contributes to performance management systems that gauge success over time. Throughout the watershed planning and implementation process, indicators and targets should be selected, refined and modified to reflect changing conditions and priorities. As the watershed planning process proceeds, a measureable target is set for each indicator, which allows for measuring progress and ultimately reaching the target (USEPA, 2008).

Watershed management plans should aim to provide a set of environmental, programmatic, and social indicators. In addition, selected indicators must be influenced by several considerations including validity, clarity, and practicality.

2.1 Environmental Indicators

Environmental indicators are based on observed variables of concern in the watershed as well as sources of degradation that contribute to impacts on the aquatic and terrestrial environments. For example, the extent of a human modified landscape and associated land use activities provide estimates of landscape integrity and biodiversity degradation at a regional level. Previous work in the watershed listed 20 recommended indicators in four major categories, including indicators and metrics related to terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity (Aquality, 2008). The prominent essay by Noss (1990) on “Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach” was also consulted as a basis for rationalizing indicators.

2.2 Programmatic and Social Indicators

Technical watershed reports often neglect or overlook “softer” programmatic and social indicators. These are important to establish and track in addition to environmental indicators (Davenport, 2003).

Programmatic indicators measure actions taken that are intended to achieve a goal. Examples include:

Number of municipalities adopting biodiversity conservation and management bylaws or policies

Number of monitoring programs implemented to assess management practices and status of vulnerable areas

Social indicators measure changes in social or cultural practices, such as increased awareness of watershed issues, and behavioural changes that lead to implementation of management measures, increased stewardship, and lower risks of impacts. Examples of social indicators include:

Rates of citizen participation in watershed restoration activities

Knowledge / attitudes among resource industries and/or field staff

2.3 Appropriate Reporting Units

2.3.1 Terrestrial Units

2.3.1.1 Natural Delineations

We use the term biodiversity management unit to refer to an ecosystem-based classification — easily recognized area, mapped terrain, or vegetation boundaries — that would be appropriate for managing biodiversity based on biotic, climatic, and physical (e.g., landform) characteristics. In general, there is coherence within and conformance of biotic elements among ecological vegetation classes (Mac Nally

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

4

et al., 2002). However, while ecological vegetation classes may be used as planning units in lieu of very detailed information of all biodiversity components, the distribution of vegetation classes across the landscape may not be representative of the underlying distribution of biodiversity as a whole (Margules & Pressey, 2000).

Use of single surrogates or classification schemes is unlikely to satisfy the conservation objective of representing overall patterns of biodiversity. Hierarchies of classification and special provisions for certain taxa are still needed to augment broader planning bases (Noss, 1990). Such a requirement should be expressed in the recommendations of the integrated watershed management plan (IWMP) by the RDRWA.

2.3.1.2 Human Usage Delineations

Land-cover is one of the most important pieces of information used in conservation assessments. In the absence of consistent biodiversity data across regions we can still make inferences about the state of the natural environment based purely on land-cover (Theobald, Reed, Fields, & Soulé, 2012). An up-to-date representation of current land-cover is of key importance to the conservation and planning of terrestrial biodiversity in the Red Deer River watershed. A complete and comprehensive land-cover map will help inform future decisions on land use and in setting conservation priorities.

A comprehensive land-cover map is critical in developing a strategy for the conservation of biodiversity in the region (North West Department of Agriculture & Environment and Rural Development, 2009). Targets and management objectives must differ in a watershed in response to natural and spatial patterns. The Headwaters, Central Parkland, and Grassland landscapes of the Red Deer River watershed differ substantially from one another, and consequently require different targets and management approaches. In addition, more pristine areas with intact natural assets require different targets than landscapes with substantial human activity. With this in mind, the reporting units for terrestrial biodiversity (i.e., five watersheds) are the same as those identified in the RDRWA background report on riparian areas, wetlands and land use (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013a). Criteria applied in defining the units were sub-watershed boundaries (Aquality, 2008), natural regions and sub-regions (Natural Regions Committee & NRC, 2006), primary land management issues and land use patterns, and the locations of water quality monitoring stations (Figure 1, Table 1).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

5

Figure 1. Map of Defined Reporting Units

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

6

Table 1. Reporting Units: Watershed-Based Landscape Units (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013a)

Watershed Landscape Unit

Rationale Sub-Watersheds Natural Regions/

Sub-Regions Primary Land Uses

Coordination with w/WQ Monitoring Stations

1. A. Upper Headwaters (3,775 Km2)

-Based on Panther and James sub-watersheds

-Primarily Rocky Mountain and Foothills

-Forestry -Oil and gas -Grazing -Recreation

Entirely upstream from Gleniffer Lake WQ monitoring station

2. B. Lower Headwaters (7,503 Km2)

-Based on Raven, Medicine, Little Red Deer sub-watersheds (including Fallen Timber Creek)

-Primarily Dry Mixedwood, some Central Parkland

-Forestry -Agriculture -Oil and gas -Recreation

-Upstream from Red Deer at Hwy. 2 WQ monitoring station

3. C. Central Urbanizing (2,829 Km2)

-Includes Blindman River, Wasksasoo

-Primarily Central Mixedwood Natural, some Central Parkland

-Concentrated urban development (e.g., Red Deer, Blackfalds, Penhold, Sylvan Lake, Gull Lake) -Agriculture -Petrochemical industry

-Upstream from Nevis WQ monitoring station

4. D. Central Agricultural (18,300 Km2)

-Includes Buffalo, Threehills, Kneehill, Rosebud, Michichi sub watersheds

-Central Parkland in upper portions, Foothills Fescue and Northern Fescue in southernmost portions

-Agriculture -Not ideal based on location of Morrin WQ station

5. Dry Grasslands (17,802 Km2)

-Includes Berry, Matzihiwin, and Alkali sub-watersheds

-Primarily Dry Mixed Grass

-Oil and gas -Pasture/native prairies -Some irrigated agriculture

-Upstream from Blindloss however the Jenner station could also be used to further study/separate influences from the Alkali vs. Berry/Matzihiwin sub-watersheds

2.3.2 Aquatic Units

Though many land-based classifications could account for biodiversity in aquatic classifications, their ability to explain variation in aquatic community structure is generally low (Hawkins & Norris, 2000; Jenerette, Lee, Waller, & Carlson, 2002). This can be related to a lack of information on changing local variability in aquatic environmental characteristics. Although temperature regime, hydrology, elevation, and soils in the drainage basin are features of ecoregions that influence longitudinal patters in Alberta’s large rivers, ecoregions do not account for causal factors or aquatic process that lead to variation in aquatic biota at different spatial scales. Broad regions cannot account for fine-scale (within watershed) variability in temperature, topography, geology and land cover (Snelder, Cattaneo, Suren, & Biggs, 2004). The presence or absence of lakes in adjacent watersheds from the same ecoregion can lead to very different ecological characteristics (e.g., the hydrothermal regime) within similar aquatic systems. Representation of aquatic biodiversity should be based on reporting units that adequately summarize aquatic ecosystems (Melles, Jones, & Schmidt, 2013). Proper reporting units encompass patterns and processes that allow links to be established between watershed health and aquatic biodiversity.

2.3.2.1 Reaches

Directs impacts of development on or near water resources tend to affect physical and chemical characteristics of the aquatic environment, which in turn influence aquatic biodiversity. Physical and chemical changes that occur as a result of impoundment, for instance, will lead to changes in the biological communities inhabiting the affected river reach. The significance of these changes depends on the state of existing conditions. Hence, the potential impact of any proposed development can alter the environment and greatly reduce the ability of some species to survive. Loss of suitable habitat could lead to threatening or endangering the continued existence of species (Bizer, 1997).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

7

The reporting units for aquatic biodiversity were based on seven reaches as defined by the Background Technical Report: Draft Site-Specific Water Quality Objectives for the Red Deer River Basin with Emphasis on Main stem (Anderson, 2012). The reaches were delineated based on broad ecoregional changes, changes in land use, and the location of long-tem water quality monitoring stations (Figure 1):

Reach 1 - Headwaters to Hwy 27

Reach 2 - Hwy 27 to upstream of Gleniffer Lake

Reach 3 - Gleniffer Lake to Hwy 2

Reach 4 - Hwy 2 to Nevis

Reach 5 - Nevis to Morrin

Reach 6a - Morrin to Jenner

Reach 6b Jenner to Bindloss

2.3.2.2 Lakes

Lakes form hydrologic networks essential to the meta-populations of many species, and provide important ecological, social and economic services such as wildlife habitat, livestock watering, fish production and recreational activities. At the regional scale, they collectively support uniquely biodiverse conditions, often biologically richer than those in running waters (Rosset et al., 2013). In contrast to other ecosystems, lakes tend to have more robust planning, management, and regulatory frameworks supported by different levels of government and organizations such as cottage associations and local charities. While lakes do not take on explicit sections in previous Background Technical Reports, there is value in considering them as reporting units for aquatic biodiversity and overall indicators of watershed health in the watershed. Five lakes were selected as additional reporting units for aquatic biodiversity, emphasizing context within reaches and watershed reporting units. Lakes were selected based on surface area, ranging from 42 to 143 km2. The lake reporting units are:

Sylvan Lake (42 km2)

Gull Lake (86 km2)

Buffalo Lake (96 km2)

Gough Lake (44 km2)

Sullivan Lake (143 km2)

2.3.3 Riparian Areas

A huge variety of critical functional connections exist between aquatic and terrestrial habitats, including transfer of nutrients and water, the provision of conditions for species requiring both aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and the development of complex terrain as a function of water flow (Talley, Huxel, & Holyoak, 2006). These connections are mediated by both physical and biological processes spanning a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Riparian areas referred to in this report are based mainly on the Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Land Use Background Technical Report (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013a), within the context of both terrestrial (i.e., five watersheds as described in Table 1) and aquatic (i.e., six reaches and five lakes, as detailed in Figure 1) reporting units.

Riparian lands are found along the edge of waterbodies including rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, springs, and ponds. Given the dynamic nature of these lands, there is currently no universally agreed on definition for riparian lands. This report follows the definition used in the Riparian Areas, Wetlands and Land Use report (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013b).

Hydrology (both groundwater and surface water) is the driving force behind physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring on riparian area lands (Clare & Sass, 2012). Riparian lands are highly

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

8

interconnected habitats that allow for the transfer of energy and materials between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Hence, riparian areas themselves are simultaneously under the influence of both terrestrial processes and aquatic processes (e.g., nutrient and sediment transfer). In drier regions, such as Alberta, riparian zones can be a source of water and nutrients to underlying aquifers and adjacent uplands, whereas in more humid climates, riparian lands are more often recipients of groundwater discharge (Clare & Sass, 2012). Riparian ecosystems play a more critical role in determining the dynamics and overall health of aquatic ecosystems than in other terrestrial areas. Well-vegetated riparian areas provide benefits to biodiversity in amounts disproportionate to their surface area. Approximately 80% of Alberta’s species use riparian areas in all or part of their life cycle (AENV, 2008).

2.4 Scale and Geography

Identifying the forces that determine patterns of biodiversity constitutes a central issue in the field of ecology. While diversity patterns have been investigated at the scale of individual basins, stream reaches, and habitat units, results have been inconsistent. A variety of trends in species richness have been described in relation to habitat variables in other sources (Brosse, Arbuckle, & Townsend, 2003). The processes that govern diversity and habitat selection may vary across scales of analyses and, by ignoring scale, we risk drawing incorrect ecological conclusions.

2.5 Targets, Risks, and Cumulative Effects Management

Cumulative effects are the result of multiple human activities occurring on a landscape over time and space. The federal practitioners’ guide defines cumulative effects as “changes to the environment that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present and future human actions" (Hegmann et al., 1999). Cumulative effects tend to occur as a result of mismatches in the scale at which impacts accumulate and the scale at which decisions are made. The consequences of human activities often appear insignificant on an individual project by-project basis, but accumulate to levels of significance when broader scales of time and space are considered (Kingsley, 1997).

Cumulative impacts are rarely linear, and are more often characterized by sudden non-linear shifts (Folke et al., 2004). Ecosystems are complex, dynamic, and adaptive systems, and rarely follow simple, predictable, linear changes through time. Long periods of stability, punctuated by abrupt, rapid, non-linear change to an alternative state are characteristic features of most ecosystems. These abrupt changes or shifts are caused by complex interactions between ecosystem resilience and the cumulative effects of multiple stressors. Often, ecosystems are resilient to a certain level of stressors and will show little change. However, if multiple stressors are crowded in space and time, a sudden “trigger” or critical threshold can be surpassed, causing the ecosystem to “flip” into an alternative state. Well documented examples of these non-linear changes include shifts from clear water to turbid water conditions in temperate lakes (Carpenter, Ludwig, & Brock, 1999) and shifts from hard corals to macroalgae in coral reef ecosystems (Hughes, 1994).

2.6 Targets and Management Responses

To achieve sustainable development, management responses need to be driven by and linked to established indicators and targets specifying the desired level or range that an indicator must achieve or maintain through time. The aim is to be proactive to help avoid reaching potential critical thresholds where undesirable conditions and unacceptable environmental, social, or economic impacts occur. Determining the appropriate target value for an indicator often requires a blend of science, planning, and social values. An ecological thresholds defined as a critical value at which sudden non-linear and often irreversible change occurs, (Folke et al., 2004) is notoriously difficult to quantify and predict, and is often site-specific or only relevant for locations in which the observed changes occur.

Data gaps and incomplete information are a challenge when formulating targets, particularly if planning exercises still require management targets. Adaptive management frameworks are useful in this regard. An adaptive management approach could guide the development of management targets that integrate

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

9

robust scientific knowledge and changes in base information as they arise. Monitoring strategies, information trends, and values must be carefully implemented and tracked in order to ensure targets are up to date. Targets must be set by integrating existing knowledge and data, expert analysis, socioeconomic considerations and adjustments with experience. Effective adaptive management requires testing assumptions and iterative analysis through time to refine or change targets in response to gained data , information and management experience.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

10

3. APPROACHES TO ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY

3.1 Classification of Biodiversity

While diversity refers to the range of variation or differences among a set of entities, biological diversity refers to variety within the living world. The term biodiversity is commonly used to describe the number, variety, and variability of living organisms. The Canadian Biodiversity Strategy defines biodiversity as “the variety of species and ecosystems on Earth and the ecological processes of which they are a part – including ecosystem, species, and genetic diversity components.” This very broad usage is essentially a synonym for ”Life on Earth” (UNEP, 2014).

Biodiversity is more than just the sum of its parts, as all of its elements, regardless of whether we understand their roles or know their status, are integral to maintaining functioning, evolving, resilient ecosystems. Complex concepts such as biodiversity are often easier to grasp if reduced to their component pieces. Furthermore, effective management often requires measurements and hence, quantitative values ascribed to biodiversity.

In general, measures of biodiversity involve the quantification of components such as the number of species present, the population of a species or its abundance, a habitat or the sum of all such components within a given area or site. Evaluations may be carried out on various components of biodiversity (i.e., from genetic variation within species, to individual species, species assemblages, biotopes and biomes) and at a variety of scales, from local to regional, and even at the global scale (Tucker, 2005). Approaches and criteria for biodiversity evaluations vary considerably depending upon their purpose, their scale and the biodiversity components in question. As a starting point, Spellerberg (2005) indicated six general best practices that would be useful to include in an evaluation framework for biodiversity:

Evaluation objectives should be defined

Criteria should be quantifiable, rather than subjective

Evaluations should be repeatable

Evaluations should be based on biological principles

The methods, results and analysis should be explained so that they can be understood by everyone who has an interest in the area being evaluated

Cost in time and money should take into account the depth and integrity of underlying surveys

3.1.1 Genetic Diversity

Genetic diversity refers to the diversity (or genetic variability) within a species. Each individual species possesses genes that are the source of its own unique features. The term genetic diversity also covers distinct populations of a single species, such as variations in susceptibility to pest species across broad stretches of forest. The huge variety of different gene sets defines an individual or a whole population's ability to tolerate stress from any given environmental factor (Vold & Buffet, 2008). For instance, while some individuals might be able to tolerate an increased load of pollutants in their environment, others, carrying different genes, might suffer from infertility or even die under the exact same environmental conditions.

The protection or management of genetic diversity is costly. The reduction and extinction of populations is far easier to analyze. Extinction is not only the loss of whole species, but is also preceded by a loss of genetic diversity within the species (Pasari, Levi, Zavaleta, & Tilman, 2013). This loss reduces the species’ ability to perform its inherent role in the ecosystem. The loss of genetic diversity within a species can result in the loss of useful and desirable traits (e.g., resistance to parasites).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

11

3.1.2 Species Diversity

Species biodiversity primarily refers to the abundance of different animal, plant and microbial species. Species are a complete, self-generating, unique ensemble of genetic variation, capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. They (and their subspecies and populations) are generally considered to be the only self-replicating units of genetic diversity that can function independently. The composition of species in a given ecosystem is the result of a long lasting adaptation to certain features such as temperature range, or availability of food or light. Furthermore, the function of a certain species emerges as a result of interactions with its environment, like increasing the light availability for plant growth or preventing sediment erosion. The loss of species is accompanied by a loss of functionality, some of which directly affects human life in a severe way. Examples include the reduction of commercially harvested fish stocks, and loss of soil and sediment used for agriculture. When species become extinct, the value and ecosystem services they provide are lost forever. Over-exploitation, pollution, habitat conversion, and introduction of non-native species into new ecosystems are the main threats to species diversity today.

3.1.3 Ecosystem Diversity

An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism communities and non-living (abiotic) elements, all interacting as a functional unit. An ecosystem’s character changes as community members and physical contexts change. When a threshold of tolerance is reached in the system, it may result in the inability to return to its previous form (Vold & Buffet, 2008).

Ecosystem diversity is the relationship between landscapes, their territorial organization and dynamics, and inter-relationships as seen by individuals and societies through different local, regional and national cultures. There is a great diversity of ecosystems worldwide that function relative to their ecological regions.

Natural ecosystems, in all their quality and diversity, have been altered by human activities over thousands of years. They are continually evolving, owing to the constant changes in the way that different societies use land. Landscapes consequently embody the collective memory of nature and their inhabitants, forming a complex element of the environment. Natural ecosystems provide significant value and services but their individual tolerance levels to human disturbances are varied and often unknown. The measurement, management, and protection of ecosystems is a challenging practice that requires innovative and diverse approaches (Mahamane, 2012). In the absence of a strong understanding of ecosystem processes, it is often more appropriate to manage sources of anthropogenic disturbance, as these are often better known and more easily quantified.

3.1.4 Hierarchical Characterization of Biodiversity

An analytical framework for biodiversity that identifies the major ecosystem components at several levels of organization could be used for determining specific, measurable indicators for monitoring change and assessing the overall status of biodiversity (Noss, 1990). Following the hierarchal concept of ecosystems (O’Neill, DeAngelis, Waide, & Allen, 1986), biodiversity should be monitored at multiple levels of organization, and at multiple spatial and temporal scales. No single level of organization (e.g., gene, population, community) is fundamental, and the level of resolution is dependent on specific goals (Figure 2).

Biodiversity, as Franklin et al. (1981) recognized, could be further classified using three primary attributes: composition, structure, and function. This hierarchal characterization organizes biodiversity according to primary ecological attributes found on each level of organization (Figure 3). The hierarchy recognizes the relevance of capturing interactions with the environment in different ways at different levels of biological organization. Effects at one level can be expected to reverberate through other levels, often in unpredictable ways (Noss, 1990). Ultimately, the hierarchical framework should facilitate selection of biodiversity indicators in environmental monitoring and assessment programs (Noss, 1990).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

12

Figure 2. Compositional, Structural, and Functional Biodiversity, Shown as Interconnected Spheres, Each Encompassing Multiple Levels of Organization.

3.1.4.1 Compositional diversity

Composition measures the variety of species in an ecological system. Descriptors of composition include species richness and species diversity. While the concept of richness only involves the number of species found on a certain area, diversity usually includes a composed metric between number of species and the total number of individuals representing each of the species populations (i.e., abundance). Compositional diversity often considers each species on an equal basis (Péru & Dolédec, 2010; Vold & Buffet, 2008), without regard for the particular roles that individual species may play in a given ecosystem.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

13

3.1.4.2 Structural diversity

Structure is the physical organization or pattern of an ecosystem. It is measured by communities, habitats (or patches) and other elements at a landscape scale (Noss, 1990). Measurements that quantify variability in community structure are important because these can describe habitat heterogeneity. In general, a more heterogeneous structure indicates a higher structural diversity. Structural diversity could also infer the interaction of a number of different physical landscape attributes, therefore, quantitative landscape structure evaluations tend to require a series of complex multivariate analysis (McElhinny, 2002).

3.1.4.3 Functional Biodiversity

Functions are the result of one or more biotic or evolutionary processes including predation, gene flow, natural disturbances and mycorrhizal associations; as well as abiotic processes such as soil development and hydrological cycles (Vold & Buffet, 2008). Examples of functions include predator-prey systems, meta-population dynamics1, and habitat connectivity. While compositional diversity is a common and simple metric for assessing human impacts on ecosystems, functional diversity is scarcely employed because of the difficulty involved in measuring and assessing it across broad areas. Where it can be carried out, it is a highly desirable metric from the perspective of habitat management and conservation. However assessing functional biodiversity requires a dedicated long-term analysis that often precludes its use in broad-scale planning efforts.

Figure 3. Examples of Biodiversity Components and Attributes (Vold & Buffet, 2008)

3.2 Ecosystem Services

Societies gain a multitude of values, benefits, goods and services from ecosystems. Collectively, these benefits are known as ecosystem services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003, 2005) defines ecosystem services as the “benefits people obtain from ecosystems” and distinguishes four categories of ecosystem services (Figure 4:

Provisioning services

Regulating services

Cultural services

Supporting services

Supporting services differ from provisioning, regulating, and cultural services in that their impacts on people are either indirect or occur over a very long time period, whereas changes in the other categories have relatively direct and short-term impacts on people (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003). For

1Metapopulation is a population in which individuals are spatially distributed in a habitat in two or more subpopulations. Populations of mountain

sheep and coral-reef fishes are good examples of metapopulations. Human activities and natural disasters are the main causes of metapopulation

and increase the population that occurs as metapopulations. Such factors cause the fragmentation of a large habitat into patches.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

14

example, humans do not directly use soil formation services, although changes in this would indirectly affect people through the impact on provisioning services, such as food production.

Figure 4. The Four Categories of Ecosystems Services - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report (2005).

At present, there are few studies that link changes in biodiversity with changes in ecosystem functioning and human well-being. Societies have benefited economically over the last century from the conversion of natural ecosystems to anthropogenically influenced systems. The losses of biodiversity and associated changes in ecosystem services have resulted in the decline of well-being, resulting in the impoverishment of certain social groups who depend on the land for their livelihood (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003, 2005).

Local or functional extinction, or the reduction of populations to the point that they no longer contribute to ecosystem functioning, can have dramatic impacts on ecosystem services. Changes in biotic interactions between species (i.e., predation, parasitism, competition, and facilitation) can lead to disproportionately large, irreversible, and often negative alterations of ecosystem processes. Many changes in ecosystem services are brought about by the removal or introduction of organisms in ecosystems that disrupt biotic interactions or ecosystem processes. Based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), some critical links on the importance of biodiversity to ecosystem services are:

Biodiversity affects key ecosystem processes in terrestrial ecosystems such as biomass production, nutrient and water cycling, and soil formation and retention (all of which govern and ensure supporting services).

The preservation of the number, types, and relative abundance of resident species can enhance invasion resistance in a wide range of natural and semi-natural ecosystems.

Biodiversity influences climate at local, regional, and global scales. Therefore, changes in land use and land cover that affect biodiversity can affect climate. In addition to biodiversity within habitats, the diversity of habitats in a landscape exerts additional impacts on climate across multiple scales.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

15

Some components of biodiversity affect carbon sequestration and are therefore important in the context of carbon-based climate change mitigation when afforestation2, reforestation, reduced deforestation, and biofuel plantations are involved.

The maintenance of natural pest control services, which benefits food security, rural household incomes, and national incomes of many countries, is strongly dependent on biodiversity.

Figure 5. Boreal Ecosystem Services Value Accounts (Anielski & Wilson, 2005).

2 Afforestation refers to the establishment of a forest or stand of trees in an area where there was no forest

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

16

3.3 Status of Biodiversity

In addressing the complex topic of biological diversity, it has become conventional to think in hierarchical terms: from the genetic material within individual cells, to individual organisms, populations, species, communities of species, and the entire biosphere (Noss, 1990). The diversity of species, however, is the most accepted measure of the biodiversity of an area.

For all aspects of biodiversity, the current pace of loss is gaining momentum and shows no indication of slowing down. Species extinction does happen naturally, but there is mounting evidence that humans have increased the extinction rate by a factor of 100 times the natural rate over the past 100 years (United Nations Environment Programme, 2014). Since the current extinction rate is much greater than the rate at which new species arise, there is a net loss of biodiversity.

Virtually all Earth's ecosystems have been somehow influenced by human actions, especially through agricultural practices and river damming (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Although the most rapid changes in ecosystems are now taking place in developing countries, industrial countries historically experienced comparable changes. Figure 6 demonstrates the loss in each biome type prior to 1950 and between 1950 and 1990. While cultivated lands provide many provisioning services (such as grains, fruits, and meat), habitat conversion to agriculture typically leads to reductions in local native biodiversity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

The following sections describe the status of biodiversity from the global scale to our region of interest.

3.3.1 Global

Much of the emphasis in biodiversity studies is on mammals, birds, and insects, all of which are relatively large and relatively easy to observe. However, it is also important to consider the diversity of smaller organisms such as invertebrates, fungi, or bacteria in soils and freshwater or marine environments. Globally, around 1.75 million species have been described and formally named to date, and there are grounds for believing that several million more species exist but remain undiscovered (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993). Eight million of the approximate10 million animal species estimated to exist are insects. Almost 10,000 bird species and 4,640 mammals are recognized, and it is believed that very few of either group remain to be discovered. Approximately 71% of the Earth's surface is covered by marine waters, yet this is the most unexplored ecosystem type in the world (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993).

Water

Only 2-3% percent of the total world’s water volume is non-saline. Approximately two-thirds of this quantity is locked away as ice, and around one-third is stored as groundwater in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. Surface freshwater, i.e., the world's lakes, rivers and wetlands, hold only a small volume of the remaining water, but these waterbodies support a considerable portion of the world’s biodiversity. For example, about 40% of the more than 25,000 fish species known in the world occur in freshwater, and many isolated water systems, particularly large old lakes, contain a vast number of species found nowhere else on Earth. Freshwater ecosystems, even more than terrestrial and marine environments, are highly threatened and have suffered significant losses of biodiversity (Puckett, Jelks, Burkhead, & Walsh, 2008).

Land

Land, bearing the wide diversity of terrestrial ecosystems that humans are most familiar with, as well as surface freshwaters, covers less than one-third (29%) of the Earth's surface. Although the information available on the distribution of the world's species is uneven and incomplete, the single most obvious pattern in global biodiversity is that overall species richness tends to increase toward the equator. In the simplest terms, this means that there are more species in total and per unit area in the tropics than in temperate regions and more in temperate regions than in polar regions. This variation in species number is strongly correlated with global variation in incident energy and water availability, which may potentially lead to increased net primary production by photosynthetic organisms. A possible explanation for

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

17

variation in species number is that this broader resource base may allow more species to coexist (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993).

Figure 6. Relationship Between Native Habitat Loss to Agriculture by 1950 and Losses Between 1950 and 1990 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

3.3.2 Canada

Canada has identified over 70,000 species, approximately half of which are terrestrial, a quarter freshwater, and the other quarter marine. The marine environment has fewer species than expected, while freshwater has more. This trend reverses itself at higher levels of classification, where two-thirds of biological phyla are mostly, or exclusively marine, while only a third is primarily terrestrial or freshwater. The patterns of Canadian biodiversity follow a definite declining trend towards less biodiverse environments, largely following the increasingly hostile environment as one heads north. This gradient pattern has been taken into account in the borders and definitions of Canada's ecozones (The Redpath Museum, 2014).

Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends (2010) was the first assessment of Canada’s biodiversity from an ecosystem perspective. Some findings reveal that much of Canada’s natural endowment remains healthy, including large tracts of undisturbed wilderness, internationally significant wetlands, and thriving estuaries, particularly in sparsely populated or less accessible areas. Over half of Canada’s landscape remains intact and relatively free from human infrastructure. Much of this undisturbed landscape is in the far and remote north, the northern boreal forest and the coastal temperate rainforest.

The report highlights that the government of Canada recognizes freshwater fisheries for their significant economic and cultural importance (Federal Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada, 2010). For example, significant policy interventions have allowed fish populations to recover from past overharvesting. Also, contaminants such as DDT and PCBs, which caused a profound decrease in wildlife populations, are no longer used. Federal, provincial, and territorial governments have protected many ecologically significant areas in the last 15 years. Canadians have demonstrated their commitment

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

18

to biodiversity conservation through the growing number of individuals, groups, and businesses involved in stewardship initiatives.

Conservation Priorities

While progress has been made, the Canadian working group on biodiversity suggests that action is still needed to maintain important ecosystems (Federal Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada, 2010). The following trends were identified as requiring action for reversal:

Loss of old growth forests

Changes in river flows at critical times of the year

Loss of wildlife habitat in agricultural landscapes

Declines in certain bird populations

Contaminants recently detected in the environment are known to be impacting wildlife populations increases in wildfire

Significant shifts in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial food webs

Temperature increases, shifting seasons, and changes in precipitation, ice cover, snowpack, and frozen ground are indicators of climate change that have the capacity to alter ecosystems in unpredictable ways.

Following the mentioned trends, examples of ecosystems elements or natural processes that are compromised or are reaching critical thresholds include (Federal Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada, 2010):

Fish populations that have not recovered despite the removal of fishing pressure

Declines in the area and condition of grasslands, where grassland bird populations are dropping sharply

Fragmented forests that place forest-dwelling caribou at risk

Dramatic loss of sea ice in the Arctic, which is currently causing a multitude of ecosystem impacts and is expected to trigger declines in ice-associated species such as polar bears

Nutrient loading is on the rise again in over 20% of the water bodies sampled, including some of the Great Lakes where, 20 years ago regulations successfully reduced nutrient inputs

Lakes affected by acid deposition have been slow to recover despite reductions in acidifying air emissions

Invasive non-native species have reached critical levels in the Great Lakes and elsewhere

Detecting changes in ecosystems early-on, and acting before thresholds are crossed, has the greatest likelihood of preventing biodiversity loss. Restoration, although more costly and time-consuming than prevention, has also proven to be successful.

Monitoring

Canada’s long-term climate and hydrological monitoring programs are comprehensive, but Canada has not put equivalent effort into monitoring biodiversity and ecosystems. Information collected on local and regional scales cannot be extrapolated to a broader scale. Appropriate ecosystem-level information is less available than decision makers may realize, which is impacting the ability to develop relevant land use policies (Federal Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada, 2010).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

19

3.3.3 Alberta

Alberta's diverse landscape and aquatic ecosystems support a wide variety of plants and animals. However, Alberta's growing human population and economy, along with associated factors, can impact native plants and animals. In 2010, it was determined that 21 of 584 vertebrate species (i.e., 3.6%) are at risk of disappearing from the province. This is an increase from the 2.2% of species at risk reported in 2005. The calculation uses the number of vertebrates (584) rather than the full range of species (5,235) to make long-term comparisons more meaningful. The percentage of species at risk in Alberta was most recently reported in the 2010-11 Annual Report of Alberta’s Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (2011a). The 2010 General Status of Alberta Wild Species report (2011b) showed that most populations of plants and animals are healthy and secure. Of the 5,235 species assessed in the province, as of June 2011 there are:

16 endangered species (face imminent extinction or elimination from Alberta)

13 threatened species (likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed)

15 species of special concern (characteristics that make them particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events)

Alberta compares favourably on a national basis, where the percentage of species at risk is 2.7% (Alberta ESRD, 2005).The most recent Alberta results report on 5,235 species, including hundreds of vertebrate animals and thousands of plants and invertebrates (Alberta ESRD, 2011b). The general status ranking for each wild species in Alberta is based on population size, population dispersion, population distribution, trend in population, trend in distribution, threats to populations, and threats to habitat. The ranks are At Risk, May be at Risk, Sensitive, Secure, Not Assessed, Exotic/Alien, Extirpated/Extinct, and Accidental/Vagrant. The percentage of species at risk increased in 2010 relative to 2005, primarily because the measure changed from all species at risk to vertebrate species at risk to provide a more stable long-term measure. The next analysis will be conducted in 2015 (Alberta ESRD, 2012a).

Status of Alberta Species

Figure 7 shows the proportion of Alberta's wild species in several general status categories, including comparisons between 2000, 2005 and 2010 (Alberta ESRD, 2012b). Data for this indicator is taken from the General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2000, 2005 and 2010. These rankings were prepared over a five-year period by species experts across Canada and represent the most up-to-date inventory of provincial biodiversity at the species level.

Nationally, a greater proportion of species from the reptiles and amphibians groups are classified as "secure" than in Alberta. However, these statistics are influenced by a relatively small number of species from each group represented in Alberta (Alberta ESRD, 2012b). In the remaining groups that have larger population sizes (mammals and birds), the national status classifications are comparable to Alberta's. Changes in national status between 2005 and 2010 are limited in most groups; however, more reptiles have been classified as At Risk (Figures 7 and 8). Freshwater fish were not assessed in Canada in 2010, so this group was not included in the Alberta comparisons.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

20

Figure 7. Comparison of 2000, 2005 and 2010 General Status of Alberta Wild Species (Alberta ESRD, 2011b).

Figure 8. Comparison of 2000, 2005 and 2010 General Status of Canada’s Wild Species (Alberta ESRD, 2011b).

3.3.4 Red Deer River Watershed

The majority of the land base in the Red Deer River watershed is covered by annual croplands, grasslands and perennial cropland/pastures (35%, 23%, and 20% respectively). Coniferous forests cover about 7% of the land base, while the remaining land covers represent <2.5% each and are uncommon at the watershed scale (Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2009).

The watershed has a clear west-east gradient, where percentage cover of the treed and forested land base ranges from 40-70% in the western sub-watersheds to 10-15% in the eastern sub-watersheds (Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2009). Conversely, the grassland and forage (i.e., perennial pasture) land cover has a percentage cover increase that trends upwards from west (~35%) to east (~65%). Annual croplands and developed lands are most prominent in the central region, particularly the Waskasoo Creek, Threehills Creek, Kneehills Creek, and Rosebud River sub-watersheds.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

21

3.4 Monitoring of Aquatic and Terrestrial Biodiversity

3.4.1 Canada

Canadians recognize the need to maintain a healthy environment and are concerned about the degradation of ecosystems and the loss of species and genetic diversity that results from human activities. The Government of Canada, with support from provincial and territorial governments, signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992. The Convention was believed to be a very important global and national instrument for promoting and guiding efforts to conserve biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological resources (Minister of Supply and Services, 1995).

As soon as the Convention came into force in 1993, work on a Canadian Biodiversity Strategy began to determine the measures required to meet the obligations of the Convention and to enhance coordination of national efforts aimed at the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological resources. The centrepiece of the framework is a suite of four national outcomes:

Healthy and diverse ecosystems

Viable populations of species

Genetic resources and adaptive potential

Sustainable use of biological resources

Following the adoption of the Biodiversity Outcomes Framework in 2006, the Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers mandated the development of an Ecosystem Status and Trends Report for Canada as a first deliverable in 2007 (Federal Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada, 2010).

Provincial and territorial governments have integrated biodiversity into government initiatives, using a variety of policies, strategies, legislation and voluntary approaches. Canadian initiatives regarding biodiversity issues deal with key sectors such as federal, provincial and territorial government, urban areas, Aboriginal peoples, academic and scientific institutions, environmental non-governmental organizations, industry and business, and stewardship. As part of Canada's Species at Risk Act (Minister of Justice, 2002), the federal government established the Habitat Stewardship Program, which allocates up to $13 million per year for projects that conserve and protect species at risk and their habitats, and engage citizens in conservation projects. In 2007, the Government of Canada announced the Natural Areas Conservation Program (2013) to help non-profit, non-government organizations secure ecologically sensitive lands and ensure the protection of ecosystems, wildlife and habitat. Through a federal contribution of $225 million to the program, 336 properties, totalling more than 103,600 hectares, have been acquired, resulting in population increases of 74 species at risk.

Reports on the general status of more than 1,600 Canadian wild species are meant to be updated every five years, with the first released in 2000 (National Status Working Group, 2011). In addition, Parks Canada (2009) has a comprehensive science-based monitoring system in place to assess ecological integrity. For each major park ecosystem, a set of monitoring measures is chosen based on an understanding of ecosystem structure, ecological function, and the stressors impacting the ecosystem. Monitoring results are recorded in an information system that provides regular updates of each park’s ecological condition. Results are reported to the public in a State of Parks report. Canada is also monitoring Arctic biodiversity through its participation in the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP), an initiative of the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group (2004). The CBMP is a mechanism for harmonizing and enhancing long-term biodiversity monitoring efforts across the Arctic in order to improve the detection of, and reporting on, significant trends and pressures.

3.4.2 Alberta

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) is the designated ministry steward of air, land, water and biodiversity in the province of Alberta. Alberta ESRD’s vision aims to achieve desired

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

22

environmental outcomes and sustainable development of natural resources for Albertans. In late 1995, the Government of Alberta committed to using the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy (Minister of Supply and Services, 1995) as a guide for conserving biodiversity and ensuring the sustainable use of biological resources. Currently, Alberta ESRD provides two condition indicators (i.e., susceptibility of biodiversity to change) with regards to biodiversity: percentage of species at risk and status of Alberta species. Another important source of biodiversity information in the province is the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI). The ABMI program encompasses more than 20 scientists and surveys a broad range of biodiversity components such as diversity of living organisms, habitat structures, vegetation communities and landscape patterns (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, 2003). Other important sources of biodiversity information in Alberta are grouped in Table 2.

Table 2. Main Provincial Sources of Biodiversity Data Grouped by Biodiversity Indicator.

Type of indicator Metric Source3 Spatial

All Biodiversity on Alberta's species ABMI Mix

All Biodiversity on Alberta's species ACIMS Mix

Structure Stands physical attributes AVI Yes

Structure Terrain features AltaLis Yes

Composition Land Cover CPVI Yes

Composition Percentage of native Land Cover NPVI Yes

Composition Percentage of native Land Cover GVI Yes

Composition Fish and wildlife inventory data FWMIS Yes

Function General water quality of lakes and large rivers Alberta ESRD No

Function ID of species at risk Species at Risk program No

Composition Biological monitoring of lakes and rivers Alberta ESRD No

3.4.3 Red Deer River Watershed

In 2008, the RDRWA developed a State of the Watershed report (Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2009). The purpose of the report was to summarize the current knowledge, comment on the environmental integrity of the Red Deer River watershed, and provide the basis for a future Integrated Watershed Management Plan. The report focuses on 20 indicators, including biological indicators, which provide the background information required for improved watershed management decisions by regulators, policy makers, landowners and industrial users. Table 3 summarizes biological indicators (derived from plant and animal data) from which various aspects of ecosystem health can be determined or inferred, and ultimately linked to the overall health of the watershed (Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2008).

3 Acronyms are: Alberta Monitoring Institute (ABMI), Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS), Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI), Central Parkland Vegetation Inventory (CPVI), Native Prairie Vegetation Inventory (NPVI), Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI), Fisheries & Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS), Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (Alberta ESRD). The Column Type of Indicator Refers to Biodiversity Attributes Covered (i.e., Structure, Composition, And Function). The Column Spatial Refers to Information Conducive of Spatial Analysis.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

23

Table 3. Summary of Biological indicators and Metrics for the Red Deer River Watershed (Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2008).

Indicator Metric (s) Performance Measures

Biodiversity (terrestrial and aquatic) Species richness and abundance Changes in species richness andabundance, protection of habitat areas

Fish Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) Maintenance and/or improvement inriparian area health, preservation of fish habitat

Land Cover Percentage of land cover Increase in percentage cover ofnative vegetation

Species at risk Number of species at risk withinwatershed and their distribution

No addition of species at risk

3.5 Indicators of Biodiversity

3.5.1 Importance

Biodiversity indicators are measurable surrogates for environmental end points that are of value to the public. Stakeholders often require biodiversity monitoring programs to track the impact of changes in human land use activities so that potential mitigation strategies can be evaluated (Forester & Machlis, 1996). Species monitoring has additional importance to stakeholders because species are independent, self-replicating units that cannot be re-created (Bunnell, 1998). As such, a biodiversity indicator should be sufficiently sensitive to provide an early warning of change, be widely applicable, easy and cost effective to measure and calculate, and relevant to ecologically significant phenomena (Noss, 1990). Landres et al.(1988) recommend using indicators as part of a comprehensive risk analysis strategy that focuses on key habitats (including corridors, mosaics, and other landscape structures) as well as species. Such a strategy might include monitoring indicators of compositional, structural, and functional biodiversity at multiple levels of organization. The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (2014) suggests using an organizational structure for biodiversity indicators in monitoring programs that takes into account the amounts and patterns of various landscape types. Remote sensing can be a feasible way to monitor these landscape attributes while linking regional patterns to ecosystem integrity (Franklin, 1993). However, landscape metrics are not sufficiently detailed to document changes in local habitat structure (Hunter, 2005; Lindenmayer, Margules, & Botkin, 2000). Thus, it is necessary to monitor structures within vegetation types using ground methods (Hunter, 2005). Finally, since species may not be tightly linked to a particular landscape or habitat characteristics, some species should be monitored to ensure that biota are responding as predicted (Franklin, 1993; Hunter, 2005).

3.5.2 Hierarchical Framework

Noss (1990) emphasizes four points to consider when choosing biodiversity indicators:

1. Conduct a comprehensive assessment of biodiversity as an end point in itself, rather than as an index of air quality, water quality, or some other anthropocentric measure of environmental health.

2. Selection of indicators depends on formulating specific questions relevant to management or policy that are to be answered through the monitoring process.

3. Indicators for the level of organization one wishes to monitor can be selected from levels at, above, or below that level. Thus, if one is monitoring a population, indicators might be selected from the landscape level (e.g., habitat corridors that are necessary to allow dispersal), the

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

24

population level (e.g., population size, fecundity, survivorship, age and sex ratios), the individual level (e.g., physiological parameters), and the genetic level (e.g., heterozygosity).

4. The indicators developed by Noss (1990) in Table 4 are general categories, most of which cut across ecosystem types. In application, many indicators will be specific to ecosystems. Coarse woody debris, for example, is a structural element critical to biodiversity in many old-growth forests, such as in the Pacific Northwest (Franklin et al., 1981), but may not be important in more open-structured habitats, including forest types subject to frequent fire.

Table 4. Indicator Variables for Inventorying, Monitoring, and Assessing Terrestrial Biodiversity at Three Levels of Organization: Compositional, Structural, and Functional Attributes (Noss, 1990).

Indicators Composition Structure Function Inventory and

monitoring tools Regional Landscape

Habitat or land-cover types; patterns of species distributions

Patchiness;fragmentation; pattern of habitat distribution

Disturbanceprocesses; nutrient cycling rates; energy flow rates; connectivity; hydrologic processes; human land-use trends

Aerial photographs;Geographic Information System (GIS) technology; time series analysis; spatial statistics; mathematical indices

Community-Ecosystem

Abundance, richness, evenness, rarity, and diversity of species and guilds; proportions of endemic, exotic, threatened, and endangered species

Substrate and soilvariables; slope and aspect; vegetation biomass and physiognomy

Nutrient cycling rates; herbivory, parasitism, and predation rates; colonization and local extinction rates; fine-scale disturbance processes, including human intrusion

Same as for RegionalLandscape; resource inventories; habitat suitability indices; observations, censuses and inventories, captures, and other sampling methodologies

Population-Species

Abundance; frequency; importance or cover value; biomass; density

Population structure(sex ratio, age ratio); morphological variability

Demographicprocesses; metapopulation dynamics; phenology

Censuses; remotesensing; habitat suitability index; species-habitat modelling; population viability analysis

3.5.2.1 Planning for Biodiversity Management: the Notion of Patterns and Scale in Biodiversity

Biodiversity occurs at multiple spatial scales and levels of biological organization (Schwartz, 1999). A greater emphasis on conservation and management of diversity must occur at all appropriate levels and scales (Poiani et al., 1998). Figure 9 illustrates a hierarchical framework used to classify and analyze aquatic biodiversity at multiple scales within a watershed. At a regional scale, the primary purpose of biodiversity planning is to identify a set of reporting units that best represents the native species and ecosystems of the region and the underlying ecological processes that sustain them. Planning at the scale of reporting units aims to maintain or improve the ecological condition of targeted biological or environmental features of these areas (Poiani et al., 1998). Reporting units incorporate a broad set of biodiversity indicators at a variety of levels of biological organization and spatial scales. Carefully derived planning units must adequately represent the patterns of biodiversity in a region in order to accurately achieve the target-based goals of environmental management plans (Groves et al., 2002).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

25

Figure 9. Hierarchical Framework Used to Classify Aquatic Biodiversity (Groves et al., 2002).

3.6 Metrics of Diversity

Complete and systematic knowledge of the watershed is a desired outcome of sound regional planning for biodiversity. While a great deal of information exists for small areas of the watershed, as well as a wealth of personal knowledge harbored by those who live and work in the region, comprehensive spatially-explicit information is not available. With this in mind, only a limited set of metrics can be produced, based on the data at hand.

The following section outlines the metrics chosen for this analysis to summarize the diversity found in the Red Deer River watershed. These metrics are intended to reflect a hierarchical framework of biodiversity indicators (Table 4), and was strongly dependent on data availability. A more thorough data collection and analysis effort, which is beyond the scope of this document, will undoubtedly produce more realistic and nuanced assessments of biodiversity across the watershed. The metrics employed in this analysis represent a a first pass in describing and inferring biodiversity values to inform current practices, and guide more rigorous and systematic data collection and sampling efforts.

3.6.1 Land Cover Diversity

Land cover in the RDRW was compiled using the best land cover information available. The ABMI human footprint dataset provides detailed spatial information on developed areas in the watershed. To fill in the gaps between these features, a combination of the Central Parkland Vegetation Inventory, the Grassland Vegetation Inventory, and the ABMI Wall-to-Wall land cover datasets were used. A crosswalk

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

26

was devised to combine the varied land cover categories of each data layer into an appropriate and consistent set of classes used in this analysis (Table 5).

Table 5. Land Cover Crosswalk Between Original Cover Classes.

Agriculture grassland landcov = 'Agricultural' landcov = 'Grassland' landcov = 'AnnualCropland' landcov = 'N_Grass' landcov = 'PerennialCroplandandPasture' landcov = 'Human Modified' FP_NAME = 'Cultivation (Crop/Pasture/Bare Ground)' unvegetated landcov = 'barren' Forest landcov = 'shadow' landcov = 'broadleafForest-dense' landcov = 'snow' landcov = 'ConiferousForest' landcov = 'rock' landcov = 'ConiferousForest_Dense' landcov = 'exposed land' landcov = 'ConiferousForest_Open' FP_NAME = 'Borrow-Pits/Dugouts/Sumps' landcov = 'DeciduousForest' landcov = 'mixedwood-dense' developed landcov = 'N_Conif' landcov = 'developed' landcov = 'N_Decid' landcov = 'Industrial' landcov = 'Settled' water FP_NAME = 'Well Site' landcov = 'water' FP_NAME = 'Urban' FP_NAME = 'Canals' FP_NAME = 'Rural (Residential/Industrial)' FP_NAME = 'Reservoirs' FP_NAME = 'Road – Hard Surface' FP_NAME = 'Rail – Hard Surface' Wetland FP_NAME = 'Municipal (Water and Sewage)' landcov = 'Wetland' FP_NAME = 'Mine Site' landcov = 'Wetland_Shrub' FP_NAME = 'Industrial Site Rural'

landcov = 'Wetland_treed' FP_NAME = 'High Density Livestock Operation'

Vegetated landcov = 'herb' landcov = 'shrub_tall' landcov = 'shrubland' landcov = 'Upland' FP_NAME = 'Seismic line' FP_NAME = 'Cut Blocks'

After compilation and reclassification of this data, the resulting shapefile was dissolved to remove boundaries between polygons that shared the same land cover class, to produce polygons whose boundaries match observed changes in land cover. This land cover dataset serves as an important component of subsequent analyses on the composition and configuration of natural and anthropogenic cover. However, the anthropogenic footprint data is available at a very fine resolution, the natural cover classes are less refined, and would undoubtedly benefit from comprehensive field validation, which remains outside the scope of this report. It should serve as a general assessment at the watershed scale, but would not be sufficient for fine-scale planning exercises.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

27

3.6.2 Wetland Complexes

Wetlands play an important role in the maintenance of biodiversity, providing diverse habitats and serving as stepping stones for movement across the landscape. However, all wetlands are not equal. ; Proximity to other wetlands and the nature of the land cover separating wetlands contributes to a wetland’s value in the context of a particular area. Wetlands influence the ecological function of their surroundings. Small wetlands that make up part of a large wetland complex may be more valuable than isolated wetlands of equivalent size.

Wetland complexes have been referred to as the functional ecological unit of the prairie pothole region of central North America (Johnson et al. 2010). To identify these complexes, a “buffer” based spatial analysis may be used to identify wetlands that neighbour other wetlands. All wetland cover polygons in the compiled land cover dataset were selected, and buffered outwards by 100 m. Overlapping buffers were merged, and any wetlands occupying the same merged buffer were considered to be in the same “wetland complex”. A total wetland area was calculated for each complex. The ratio of the number of wetlands to the number of complexes was calculated for each reporting unit, as this ratio increases, more wetlands make up part of the same complex. This provides a rough metric for the comparison of overall distribution of wetlands between areas.

3.6.3 Species Richness

Species richness is a commonly used metric used to assess and compare the diversity of organisms in an area. This is a fundamental metric, but one that is fraught with misconceptions. Species richness does not incorporate any information as to the ecological role served by individual species, nor does it speak to the distribution of those species across the reporting unit. Indeed, richness does not itself identify which species are commonly found elsewhere, and which are endemic to the local region. More fundamentally, the richness of an area has been shown to be proportional to the area in question (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967). This makes comparisons between regions of different areas problematic. However, historically observed species richness is an appropriate baseline value to compile when beginning a longer-term monitoring program in a region. This can serve to identify hotspots of diversity, and notable gaps in observation records.

A point count dataset was constructed from the provincial Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) and Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) datasets. These provincial datasets compile species observations from a wide variety of sources, over a broad time period, and are not the result of a concerted and systematic survey of biodiversity. That being said, they contain a great wealth of information regarding the occurrence of species across the province. The ACIMS data focuses on rare plant and arthropod observations, and generally does not list common and broadly distributed species. The FWMIS dataset compiles terrestrial and aquatic vertebrate species observations, and is more inclusive, containing examples of common wildlife such as deer. In total, 123,891 observations are found in the Red Deer River watershed. ACIMS data are comprised of polygon observations (sensitive species found in the ACIMS database are reported only at the township scale). This data was reduced to centroid points, so that a single point layer could be analyzed. The species were summarized into broader taxonomic groupings (birds, mammals, fish, arthropods, reptiles, graminoids, forbs, lichens, mosses, sedges, and liverworts) and compiled by reporting units.

3.6.4 Slope

Terrain complexity has profound effects on the local functioning of ecological processes. As slope increases, incoming solar radiation has a more heterogeneous effect on the land, causing small scale local differences in energy availability and microclimate. At the same time, steeper slopes tend to be more sensitive to disturbances from human activities, as plants found in these areas often occur at the edge of their ranges, and soils are more sensitive to erosion.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

28

A 25 m Digital Elevation Model was used to produce slope values across the entire watershed. This slope value was classified into discrete classes (Less than 5 % slope, 5-10% 10-15%, and greater than 15% slope), and the fraction of each class found in each reporting unit was summarized. Although 25 m pixels are undoubtedly too coarse to allow for identification of fine scale terrain features, this analysis is sufficient to allow for differentiation of terrain across the entire watershed.

A terrain ruggedness index model provides a more powerful tool for assessing terrain complexity (often used in species-specific habitat suitability index models), however the calculation is rather more involved, requiring a pixel-by-pixel moving window assessment of the surrounding area, and is beyond the current scope of this report.

3.6.5 Land Cover Change

The MODIS land cover product is designed to support scientific investigations that require information related to the current state and seasonal-to-decadal scale dynamics in global land cover properties (https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/modis_products_table). MODIS Land Cover Type (MCD12Q1) includes five main layers in which land cover is mapped using different classification systems (Friedl et al., 2002). The MCD12Q1 product consists of five different land cover classifications that are produced for each calendar year at 500 m resolution. The 8-Biome classification proposed by Running et al. (1994) was employed to investigate land cover changes in the RDRW from 2001 to 2011 (Table 6).

Table 6. Land Cover Types Description.

Class 8-Biome classification 0 Water 1 Evergreen needleleaf vegetation 2 Evergreen broadleaf vegetation 3 Deciduous needleleaf vegetation 4 Deciduous Broadleaf vegetation 5 Annual broadleaf vegetation 6 Annual grass vegetation 7 Non-vegetated land 8 Urban

3.6.6 Riparian Disturbance

Natural riparian vegetation acts to stabilize banks during flooding events, preventing erosion. At the same time, the complex habitats provided by riparian vegetation make them important sources of biodiversity. Riparian areas function as important corridors for wildlife movement through the landscape. Disturbed riparian areas are associated with reduced bank stability, as the absence of natural riparian vegetation results in increased bank erosion. Disturbed riparian areas are more prone to flood-related damage, and are less likely to serve as habitat for species naturally adapted to riparian conditions.

Site-level Riparian Health Assessments are frequently used throughout the province to assess the condition of riparian areas. However, these assessments require detailed site visits and are simply beyond the capacity of watershed-wide planning. On the other hand, a GIS-derived assessment of riparian potential provides a useful tool for identifying areas with the potential to harbour riparian vegetation (due to their proximity to water bodies, adjusted by the effects of local terrain conditions). The Caslys variable width riparian model (Caslys Consulting Ltd., 2010) makes use of a digital elevation model to estimate potential riparian areas across the province using a cost-distance approach. By intersecting the Caslys polygons with non-natural land cover polygons, an estimate of the total disturbed riparian area can be constructed and summarized for each reporting unit.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

29

3.6.7 Landscape Intactness

The degree of human disturbance in a landscape is a strong predictor for the habitat quality of that landscape. Many approaches to measuring human disturbance and habitat fragmentation have been proposed and implemented over the years, but few metrics respond in a consistent and intuitive fashion to changes in the amount and configuration of disturbance. Jaeger's (2000) Effective Mesh Size metric is a very useful tool for quantifying not only the amount, but the configuration, of such disturbances. It is calculated using a “habitat patch” layer (in this case, all natural land cover classes) and a continuous “planning unit” layer.

Effective Mesh Size can best be described as the effective area of continuous natural cover in a particular area, or the probability that any two points selected randomly within a given unit will be part of the same connected patch. The greater the value, the more likely that any two points placed at random in an area will fall within the same connected natural area. That is, the greater the human footprint, the lower the effective mesh size. This analysis is conducted using 1 km2 hexagon unit areas to summarize the distribution of natural land cover types. A “cross-boundary” procedure (Girvetz, Thorne, Berry, & Jaeger, 2008; Moser, Jaeger, Tappeiner, Tasser, & Eiselt, 2006) prevents these hexagon units from artificially fragmenting the landscape, looking outside the bounds of the individual hexagons to assess whether natural cover is connected. Areas with larger mesh sizes contain larger and more connected natural cover, areas with smaller mesh sizes contain less and more fragmented natural cover. Areas with zero mesh size contain no natural cover within that 1 km2 hexagon.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

30

4. Terrestrial Biodiversity

4.1 Natural Regions and Sub-Regions

In Alberta, the Natural Regions landscape classification describes environmental diversity (Natural Regions Committee & NRC, 2006). This land classification system provides the basis for representing important biodiversity elements at a landscape or regional scale, and emphasizes overall spatial patterns reflecting climate, geological and soil factors. The Red Deer River watershed covers five natural regions and 13 natural sub-regions (Table 7), which are defined below.

Table 7. Percentage of Coverage of Natural Sub-Regions per Reporting Unit.

Reporting Unit

Natural Sub-region 1 2 3 4 5

Northern Fescue 0% 0% 0% 35% 10%

Dry Mixedgrass 0% 0% 0% 0% 81%

Mixedgrass 0% 0% 0% 0% 9%

Central Parkland 0% 23% 46% 47% 0%

Foothills Fescue 0% 0% 0% 18% 0%

Lower Foothills 17% 21% 5% 0% 0%

Dry Mixedwood 7% 43% 34% 0% 0%

Central Mixedwood 0% 0% 15% 0% 0%

Sub-Alpine 23% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Upper Foothills 25% 7% 0% 0% 0%

Alpine 26% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Montane 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Foothills Parkland 0% 5% 0% 0% 0%

4.1.1 Rocky Mountain Natural Region

This region is part of a major uplift that trends along the western part of Alberta forming the Continental Divide. The Rocky Mountain Natural Region is underlain primarily by upthrust and folded carbonate and quartzitic bedrock. This region is the most topographically rugged region in Alberta, and ranges in width from only 10 kilometres in the Waterton Lakes National Park area to more than 100 kilometres in the central portion. Elevations rise from east to west, from major river valleys at 1,000 to 1,500 metres, to 3,700 metres along the Continental Divide (Natural Regions Committee & NRC, 2006). Many of Alberta's largest rivers originate in this region and subsequently drain into the Saskatchewan and Mackenzie River systems. The highest mountains occur in the central part of the region with the lower mountains in the far north and far south. Within the Rocky Mountain Natural Region, three natural sub-regions have been identified; reflecting changes in environmental conditions related to altitude and aspect. These natural sub-regions are the Alpine Sub-region, the Subalpine Sub-region, and the Montane Sub-region, which are described below.

4.1.1.1 Alpine Sub-region

This region includes all areas above the tree line, including vegetated areas, rockland, snowfield and glaciers. Materials are generally residual bedrock and colluvium often on steep slopes. Extensive areas of unvegetated bedrock occur. Rock glaciers occur from Kananaskis Country north to Jasper National Park. Neoglacial landforms are especially prevalent in the Main Ranges of Banff and Jasper National Parks. The mean temperature from May to September is about 60C, and frost-free periods are rare.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

31

Mean annual precipitation is highly variable and ranges from 420 – 850 mm. Alpine vegetation typically forms a complex mosaic, in which microclimatic variations are reflected in marked changes in dominant species.

4.1.1.2 Subalpine Sub-region

The Subalpine Sub-region occupies a band between the Montane and Alpine Sub-regions in the south and between the Upper Foothills and Alpine Sub-regions in the north. The boundary between the Subalpine and the Upper Foothills is based partly on the changes from Foothills bedrock to Rocky Mountain strata, although portions of the Foothills Geological Belt are included in the Subalpine Sub-region in the Kakwa area. The upper limit of the Subalpine Sub-region ranges from about 2,300 metres in southern Alberta to 2,000 metres in northern Alberta. Lower elevation limits are around 1,600 metres in the south and 1,350 metres in the north. Morainal materials occupy much of the Subalpine Sub-region with colluvial and residual bedrock materials frequent at higher elevations. Fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits are common along stream valleys, with lesser amounts of glaciolacustrine and aeolian materials. The mean annual temperature ranges from -10C – 30C, with a mean July temperature of about 150C. Total annual precipitation is highly variable and ranges from 460 – 1400 mm. Winter precipitation is higher in this Sub-region than in any other, with often more than 200 cm of snowfall. Soils vary widely, reflecting the great diversity in parent materials and ecological conditions. The Sub-region is often divided into a Lower Subalpine characterized by closed forest of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas ex Louden) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt) and an Upper Subalpine with spruce-fir closed forests and open forests near the tree line. At lower elevations, lodgepole pine forests cover extensive areas following fire. Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir forests typically occur on higher, moister sites that have not been subject to fire. Open forests in the Upper Subalpine are transitional to the treeless Alpine Sub-region above. Dominant trees include Engelman spruce, subalpine fire and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.).

4.1.1.3 Montane Sub-region

Much of the southerly portion of the Montane Sub-region occurs on east-west trending ridges that extend out from the Foothills Belt from the United States border to the Porcupine Hills. The Porcupine Hills are underlain by relatively flat-lying sedimentary rocks. To the north, the Montane Sub-region occurs mostly along major river valleys. Along the Bow River, it extends from the lower reaches of the Ghost River to about Castle Junction and, along the North Saskatchewan River from Kootenay Plains to Saskatchewan Crossing. The most northerly outlier is along the Athabasca River and adjacent valleys from Yellowhead Pass to Brule Lake. A small, disjunct area is the Ya-Ha-Tinda along the Red Deer River west of Sundre. Portions of the Cypress Hills are also included here. Sandstone outcrops are typical of the main, southerly portion. The Cypress Hills are capped by Tertiary gravels and were unglaciated during the last glaciation. The landforms of the major valleys are primarily fluvial and glaciofluvial terraces and fans with smaller areas of glaciolacustrine, Aeolian and moranial deposits. Elevations range from 1000 – 1350 metres in Jasper National Park, to 1,350 – 1,600 metres in Banff National Park, to more than 1,600 along the Eastern Slopes south of Calgary.

4.1.2 Foothills Natural Region

The Foothills Natural Region is transitional zone situated between the Rocky Mountain Natural Region and the Boreal Forest Natural Region. It consists of two sub-regions, the Lower Foothills and the Upper Foothills. This natural region occurs from Turner Valley in the south, north along the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains in a gradually widening belt, and also includes several outlying hill masses such as the Swan Hills, Pelican Mountain, and the Naylor Hills.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

32

4.1.2.1 Upper Foothills Sub-region

This Sub-region occurs on strongly rolling topography along the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains from about the Bow River north to the Grande Cache area, with disjunct occurrences in the Swan Hills and Clear Hills. The sub-region is generally between the Lower Foothills and Subalpine sub-regions with an upper elevation limit of about 1,500 metres in the south to 1,000 metres in the north. Bedrock outcrops of marine shales and non-marine sandstones are frequent. Morainal deposits are common over bedrock throughout much of the area, although colluvium and residuum occur on steeper terrain. The Sub-region has a mean annual precipitation of about 540 mm, with about 340 mm occurring from May-September. The mean May-September temperature is 10 – 120C. Upland forests are nearly all coniferous and dominated by white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb.). Lodgepole pine forests occupy large portions of upland sites and black spruce dominates wet sites.

4.1.2.2 Lower Foothills Sub-region

The Lower Foothills Sub-region occurs on rolling topography created by the deformed bedrock along edge of the Rocky Mountains. Lower elevations range from about 1,250 metres in the south, to about 700 metres near Lesser Slave Lake, and to about 350 metres at the northern end near Rainbow Lake. Upper elevation limits range from about 1,450 metres in the south to 1,000 metres in the north. The sub-region also includes several flat-topped erosional remnants with flat-lying bedrock that are partially capped with Tertiary gravels, such as Swan Hills, Pelican Mountain, and Clear Hills. Surficial materials are commonly a moranial veneer or blanket over bedrock. Extensive organic deposits occur in valleys and wet depressions, especially in eastern portions. Along the mountains, bedrock outcrops of marine shales and non-marine sandstones occur often in valleys. Fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits occur along major stream valleys. Mean annual precipitation averages 465 mm, of which two-thirds falls from May-September. The mean May-September temperature is 11 – 13 0C. The forests reflect the transitional nature of the Sub-region, in which mixed forests of white spruce, black spruce, lodgepole pine, balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.), aspen (Populus spp.), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera L.) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) occur. Lodgepole pine forests are perhaps the best indication of the lower boundary of the Sub-region. The upper boundary is marked by the occurrence of nearly pure coniferous forest cover. Black spruce forests occur on moist upland sites, and fens are common in much of the Sub-region.

4.1.3 Boreal Forest

This region is the largest in Alberta most of it however, occurs north of the Red Deer River watershed. The landscape in this particular region is covered almost entirely by trees, with aspen and balsam poplar dominating the evergreens. In the northernmost areas evergreens form a seemingly endless carpet, broken only by water in the form of fens, bogs, lakes and rivers. Inside the Boreal Forest of Alberta are extensive expanses of aspen parkland in the Grande Prairie, Peace River and Fort Vermilion areas. There are also four major river systems that drain most of Alberta's north country. The presence of extensive wetlands is a major characteristic of the Boreal Forest Natural Region as well. The Boreal Forest Natural Region is very diverse topographically, climatically and biologically. Many of the changes are gradual and subtle which makes division into sub-regions difficult and seemingly arbitrary. The Boreal Forest may be divided into six sub-regions, two of which cover part of the Red Deer River watershed. These are the Dry Mixedwood Sub-region and the Central Mixedwood Sub-region, which are described below.

4.1.3.1 Dry Mixedwood Sub-region

This Sub-region is characterized by low relief and level to undulating terrain. Surficial materials are mostly till as ground morain and hummocky moraine landforms with some areas of Aeolian dunes and sandy outwash plain. The climate of the Sub-region is subhumid continental with short, cool summers and long, cold winters. The mean May-September temperature is about 130C, and the growing season is

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

33

about 90 days. Annual precipitation averages 350 mm, with June and July being the wettest months. Winters are relatively dry, with about 60 mm of precipitation. Aspen is an important tree species, occurring in both pure and mixed stands. Balsam poplar frequently occurs with aspen on the moister sites. Over time, white spruce and, in some areas, balsam fir can be expected to increase or replace aspen and balsam poplar as the dominant species; however, frequent fire seldom permits this to occur, and pure deciduous stands are common in the southern part of the Sub-region.

4.1.3.2 Central Mixedwood Sub-region

Surficial materials in the Central Mixedwood Sub-region are predominantly till as ground moraine and hummocky moraine landforms with some areas of Aeolian dunes, sandy outwash plain, and glaciolacustrine plain. The terrain has low relief and a level to undulating surface. The climate is subhumid and continental with short, cool summers and long, cold winters. While the average temperature from May-September is about 120C, the frost-free period is about 85 days. Annual precipitation averages about 380 mm, with June and July being the wettest months. Winters tend to be relatively dry however, overall, moister and cooler than the Dry Mixedwood Sub-region. The vegetation is similar to that of the Dry Mixedwood Sub-region. The differences are largely in the proportion of various vegetation types and other landscape features. Aspen is the characteristic forest species occurring in both pure and mixed stands, while balsam poplar frequently occurs with aspen, especially on moister sites in depressions and along streams. Mixedwood forests, which are characterized by a mosaic of deciduous and coniferous patches, are widespread throughout the Sub-region and characteristic of upland sites. Jack pine forests typically occupy dry, sandy upland sites which may be quite open and have prominent ground cover of lichens. Peatlands are also common in this Sub-region.

4.1.4 Parkland Natural Region

This region comprises approximately 12 per cent, or 37,000 square kilometres, of Alberta. As such, it is considered to be an ecotone, or area of transition between the aspen groves and the grasslands. The legacy of the Ice Age is evident in the form of a gently rolling blanket of moraines that overlay parts of this region. This is the most densely populated region in Alberta, with the greatest density in the Central Parkland Sub-region. It is a rich ecosystem, full of various types of vegetation and species that are not limited to any one particular area. Development and farming have drastically altered the vegetation, particularly in the central parkland region. Land use has changed much of the native vegetation. Two Sub-regions are represented in the Red Deer River watershed: the Central Parkland Sub-region and the Foothills Parkland Sub-region, which are described below.

4.1.4.1 Central Parkland Sub-region

Within this sub-region, there is a gradual transition from grassland with groves of aspen in the south to closed aspen forest in the north. Native vegetation is scarce because most land has been cultivated to grow agricultural crops. The majority of the remaining natural land is on rougher terrain or poorer soils.

Surficial deposits range from intermediate-textured hummocky and ground moraines to fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits and coarse outwash, kame moraine, and dune field materials. Moraines are most widespread, with kame moraines located throughout eastern portions of the sub-region. The Neutral Hills are an excellent example of ice-thrust bedrock ridges. The mean annual temperature is 20C, with a May-September average of 130C. The frost-free period averages 95 days. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 350 – 450 mm, with May-September averaging 300 mm. Aspen and balsam poplar forests are two major forest types that occur in the Central Parkland. Both are characterized by a lush, species rich understory. Shrub communities of snowberry, rose, choke cherry and Saskatoon are more extensive in the northern portion of the Central Parkland Sub-region. Elevations range from just over 500 metres where the Battle River enters Saskatchewan to around 1,100 metres in western portions. Numerous permanent streams, all part of the Saskatchewan River system, cut across the sub-region. Numerous lakes are scattered throughout the sub-region as well as a wide variety of permanent wetlands. Many of the lakes and wetlands are slightly to strongly saline.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

34

In Alberta, the Central Parkland Sub-region is one of the most productive waterfowl areas. Nonetheless, only about 2% of this area is formally protected in parks or other conservation areas. With only about 5% remaining in its natural state (most deep and rich soils with reliable moisture have largely been converted to productive farmland), the Parkland Sub-region is the most heavily human-impacted and fragmented sub-region in Alberta (Van Tighem, 1993).

4.1.4.2 Foothills Parkland Sub-region

The Foothills Parkland Sub-region occupies a narrow band along eastern edge of the geological foothills from Calgary south to the Porcupine Hills, and from Pincher Creek south to the American border in the Waterton Lakes National Park area. The topography is rougher than that of the Central Parkland sub-region, and elevations are higher, ranging to over 1300 metres near Paine Lake. There are also a number of permanent streams that drain into the Saskatchewan River system. Surficial deposits include extensive areas of hummocky and ground moraines, as well as more restricted areas of outwash and glaciolacustre deposits along the valleys. Extensive river terraces also occur in some areas. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 500 – 650 mm, with a mean May-September volume of 290 mm. The mean May-September temperature ranges from 12 – 30C, while the region experiences about 90 frost-free days each year. Aspen is generally dominant in the upland forests, with balsam poplar occurring on moister sites. Willow groveland dominated by Bebb willow occurs extensively on fine-textured glaciolacustrine material and on imperfectly to poorly-drained morainal sites. The understory in all forest stands is lush and dominated by a variety of herbaceous plants.

4.1.5 Grassland Natural Region

The Grassland Natural Region is located in the southeastern corner of the province and comprises approximately 14% of Alberta's total natural landscape. Alberta's grasslands are part of the Great Plains that stretch from the Gulf of Mexico, through the United States, and into Canada’s prairie provinces. The region is a flat to gently rolling plain with a few major hill systems. Most of the bedrock is covered with extensive, thick glacial till deposits. The diversity of the uplands is increased by numerous areas of fine-textured materials laid down in proglacial lakes and coarse-textured deposits in dune fields and outwash plains, both of which are associated with proglacial lake basins. Rivers in the Grassland Natural Region are part of either the Saskatchewan River or Missouri River systems. Numerous coulees and ravines are associated with these river valley systems. With the exception of isolated igneous outcrops, bedrock exposures are all of sedimentary origin and commonly occur along stream valleys. There are four sub-regions within the Grassland Natural Region, which are separated primarily by different climates, soils and vegetation. They are the Northern Fescue Sub-region, the Foothills Fescue Sub-region, the Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region, and the Mixedgrass Sub-region, all of which are described below.

4.1.5.1 Northern Fescue Sub-region

The Northern Fescue Sub-region is characterized by gently rolling terrain. Stream drainage is part of the Saskatchewan River system except for a large area of internal drainage in the Sounding Creek basin. Few stream valleys dissect the sub-region, but those with permanent flow are usually well-incised. The mean May-September temperature is 140C, and the frost-free period is about 90 days. Mean annual precipitation is 400 mm, with a mean May-September precipitation of 280 mm. The vegetation is dominated by rough fescue (Festuca campestris Rybd.).

4.1.5.2 Foothills Fescue Sub-region

This sub-region occurs largely on morainal, glaciolacustrine and outwash deposits along the lower flanks of the Foothills Geologic Belt, the Porcupine Hills and onto the adjacent plains area. Elevations in this sub-region are higher than in the Northern Fescue sub-region. The climate also differs, with greater frequency of Chinooks and thus, a milder winter climate. The majority of precipitation falls during the growing season, with a mean annual precipitation of 500 mm and 290 mm falling from May-September.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

35

The mean May-September temperature is 11 – 13 0C, and the mean annual temperature is 30C. The average frost-free period is 90 days. Grasslands are dominated by rough fescue, Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis Elmer) and oat grass (Trisetum spp.).

4.1.5.3 Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region

The Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region is the warmest and driest Sub-region in Alberta. The name "Mixedgrass" comes from the predominance of both short and mid-height grasses. The most widespread are the mid-grasses such as spear grass (Piptochaetium spp.) and the short-grasses such as blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis (Willd.ex Griffiths), with northern wheat grass (E. lanceolatus) and western wheat grass (P. smithii) also being important in hummocky areas. Of the four grassland sub-regions, the Mixedgrass Sub-region also contains the highest diversity of animal species. Many of the species in this region occur nowhere else in the province, particularly those of sand dune areas and the extreme southeast part of Alberta. A few species are absent from the rest of Canada or occur in only local areas. The topography of the Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region is generally subdued with only a few minor uplands. The predominant landform is a low-relief ground moraine but there are significant areas of hummocky moraine, glaciofluvial outwash, glaciolacustrine sand plains, fine-textured glaciolacustrine lake deposits, and eroded plains. Elevations range from 600 – 1300 m. The average summer temperature is 160C, and the total annual precipitation ranges from 260 – 280 mm. Summer precipitation in this sub-region is the lowest of any sub-region in Alberta. Although much of the natural vegetation in the sub-region has been replaced by agricultural crops, extensive areas of native rangeland remain, which are primarily managed for grazing by domestic livestock.

4.1.5.4 Mixedgrass Sub-region

This sub-region typically includes gently undulating to rolling morainal and glacial lake deposits. Slightly cooler and moister conditions prevail in this sub-region relative to the Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region, and soils are primarily Dark Brown Chernozems. The Mixedgrass Sub-region is similar to the Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region in many features. The topography is generally subdued with a few minor uplands. The mean annual temperature is 50C, with a mean summer temperature of 150C. Winter temperatures are a few degrees warmer than in the Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region, with a greater frequency and Chinook days (20 – 30 more days). Native grasslands in the Mixedgrass Sub-region are dominated by needle grasses and wheat grasses, with many of the same forbs and dwarf shrubs that occur in grasslands of the Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region. In contrast to the Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region, the vegetation is characterized by a both greater biomass production and abundance of species that end to favor cooler and moister sites. Much of the natural vegetation of the sub-region has been replaced by agricultural crops. The moister, cooler conditions are reflected in the greater productivity of rangelands, which typically produce 25% more biomass than the Dry Mixedgrass Sub-region

4.2 Land Cover

4.2.1 Compiled Land Cover

Agriculture and grassland are the dominant land cover classes in the Red Deer River watershed (Figure 10 and Table 8). Land cover types with limitations in biodiversity are developed and unvegetated, and to a certain extent include disturbed vegetation. Developed and disturbed vegetation and agriculture land cover types combined, represent 56 % of the RDRW total area (Table 8). Natural vegetation (forest, grassland, vegetated and wetland classes) make up 40% of the total area, with the remainder comprised of naturally unvegetated mountainous terrain (2%) and water (2%). Landscape unit 1 is comprised predominantly of forest cover and natural unvegetated terrain (indeed the bulk of these classes occur in unit 1, with some spill-over into unit 2). Moving from west to east, the general trend is one of decreasing forest cover, and increasing wetland and grassland cover. Extensive agriculture is found throughout all but unit 1, coupled with extensive developed areas throughout (although the highest proportion of

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

36

developed area is found in the urbanized unit 3, focused on Red Deer itself). The largest fraction of water is found in unit 3 (Figure 11).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

37

Figure 10. Land cover in the Red Deer River Watershed Compiled from Central Parkland Vegetation Inventory, Grasslands Inventory, Geobase Land cover and ABMI Wall to Wall Land Cover Data.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

38

Table 8. Distribution of Land Cover Classes Across the Red Deer River Watershed. Land Cover Stratified per Terrestrial Reporting Unit.

Land Cover Area (Km 2) Area (%)

Agriculture 30889.45 48%

Developed 3243.99 5%

Disturbed vegetation 1693.85 3%

Forest 5573.43 9%

Grassland 11861.93 19%

Unvegetated 1469.06 2%

Vegetated 1658.45 3%

Water 1418.41 2%

Wetland 5967.19 9%

Total 63775.76 100%

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

39

Figure 11. Land Cover Classes Across Terrestrial Reporting Units.

4.3 Wetland Complexes

Wetlands are found throughout the watershed, but predominantly in unit 5, where they make up about 21% of the area. The wetland complex analysis identifies a single large complex in the centre of unit 5, spreading westwards into unit 4 (Figure 12, Table 9). This wetland complex contains over 200 km2 of wetlands in total, all within 200 m of other wetlands. At the same time, there remain many outlying wetlands that are further removed from this main complex, comprising about two-thirds of all wetlands in unit 5. Wetlands in other units are scarcer, and tend to be found in clusters surrounding streams. Units

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

40

2 and 3 are particularly aggregated, forming a series of complexes in the northern portion of the watershed.

Table 9. Number of Wetlands and Associated Complexes on Each Terrestrial Reporting Unit in the Red Deer River Watershed. The Ratio Indicates the Total Number of Wetlands (per Reporting Unit) Divided by the Total Number of Wetland Complexes; The Larger the Ratio the More Spatially Sparse the Wetlands.

Terrestrial Reporting Unit # Wetlands # Wetland Complexes Ratio 1 1995 1169 1.17 2 5867 2819 2.08 3 1331 509 2.61 4 3987 2877 1.39 5 9290 3852 2.41

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

41

Figure 12. Wetland Complex Area (km2) in the Red Deer River Watershed.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

42

4.4 Species

The ACIMS and FWMIS datasets comprise a large collection of species occurrence records, collected over a broad range of time (Figure 13, white points indicate species occurrence records). As these collections are not the result of a single concerted sampling regime, it is problematic to draw strong inferences about the distribution of biodiversity in the watershed. Different sampling intensities and approaches, coupled with an uncalibrated detection probability mean that the absence of information does not necessarily indicate an absence of diversity. The second confounding factor is the species-area effect, whereby species richness tends to increase with the size of the sample area. As units 4 and 5 comprise much larger areas than units 1 through 3, the expectation is that greater richness will be observed in those areas. Those concerns aside, the data provide a strong basis for the exploration of species richness in the watershed, and highlight the range of diversity found in and around the Red Deer River.

4.4.1 Species Richness

Unit 5 contains the richest collection of observed species diversity in the watershed, including the greatest number of mammals, reptiles, forbs and arthropods (Figure 13, Table 10). Unit 4 is close behind, and contains the greatest number of bird species observed. Fish richness is high throughout the watershed, but lowest in the upper headwaters in unit 1. Lichen diversity is bimodal, completely absent from units 2 and 3, but prevalent elsewhere, with the greatest diversity found in unit 1. Tree and shrub species observation records have only been recorded in unit 1. Moss diversity is highest in unit 1, but mosses are found throughout the area.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

43

Table 10. Taxonomic Richness by Terrestrial Reporting Unit.

Landscape Units richness bird mammal amphibian fish reptile forb graminoid arthropod lichen liverwort moss sedge

Treeshrub

1. Upper Headwaters 187 70 19 5 23 0 18 1 3 30 1 9 5 3 2. Lower Headwaters 264 179 37 6 30 1 4 1 1 0 0 4 1 0 3. Central Urbanized 208 132 25 7 27 1 5 1 6 0 1 2 1 0 4. Central Agriculture 368 226 48 6 30 5 16 3 10 16 1 6 1 0 5. Dry Grasslands 388 219 49 6 30 7 43 5 13 7 1 7 1 0

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

44

Figure 13. Species Richness Across Terrestrial Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed4

4 White Points Indicate Species Occurrence Records

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

45

4.4.2 Species at Risk

Twenty nationally or provincially listed Species At Risk have been observed and recorded in the Red Deer River watershed. These species include eight birds, four plants, one mammal, three amphibians, three fish, and one insect species. (see Appendix 1-3 for species-specific occurrences per unit).

Mammals:

Swift Fox (Endangered)

Birds:

Loggerhead shrike (Threatened)

Sprague pipit (Threatened)

Peregrine falcon anatum subspecies (Threatened)

Piping plover (Endangered)

Sage thrasher (Endangered)

Burrowing owl (Endangered)

Long-billed curlew (Special Concern)

Yellow Rail (Special Concern)

Amphibians:

Great plains toad (Special Concern)

Western toad (Sensitive)

Northern Leopard Frog (At Risk)

Insects:

Monarch butterfly (Special Concern)

Plants:

Slender mouse-ear-cress (Threatened)

Tiny cryptanthe (Endangered)

Whitebark Pine (Endangered)

Limber Pine (Endangered)

Fish:

Bull Trout (Special Concern)

Lake Sturgeon (Threatened)

Mountain Sucker (Threatened)

4.5 Terrain conditions

Steep slopes are found predominantly in the mountainous terrain of unit 1, and along the incised edges of the Red Deer River in units 4 and 5. Shallow slopes are found throughout the agriculturally dominated areas of units 2, 3, and 4, and in the grassland and wetland dominated areas of unit 5. Unit 4 contains many examples of rolling hills between 5 – 10 degree slopes, likely providing small scale habitat opportunities and microclimates throughout that area (Figure 14, Figure 15).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

46

Figure 14. Map of Steep Slopes Across Terrestrial Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

47

Figure 15. Percentage Area of Slope Classes Across Terrestrial Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

48

4.6 Recent Change in Land Cover

Analysis of the MODIS time series reveals some of the limitations of the coarse imagery, as little change in the “urban” class could be detected, despite extensive development over this time period (Figure 16). The extensive nature of the “grassland” class indicates that MODIS cannot distinguish between natural grassland and agriculture. Most observed fluctuations are between broadleaf and conifer (in units 1 and 2) and between broadleaf, conifer and water classes in unit 3 and 4. This may be an indication of variations in moisture availability between years. The greatest degree of change was detected in units 1 and 2, and portions of unit 3 (Figure 17).

Figure 16. Time Series of Land Cover Change Using MODIS 12Q1 Products. Each Panel Number Refers to a Terrestrial Reporting Unit.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

49

Figure 17. Distribution of Change in Land Cover Classes in the Red Deer River Watershed for the Years 2006 and 2011. The Reference Year was the 2001 MODIS 12Q1 Land Cover Tiles. Numbers Refer to Terrestrial Reporting Units.

4.7 Riparian Disturbance

Developed land cover was observed in riparian areas throughout the watershed (Figure 18), with the least disturbance occurring in unit 1 (approximately 12% of riparian extents), and the greatest proportion in unit 3 (70% of riparian extents). Unit 4 contained the greatest total amount of disturbance (Figure 19). In general, the more rugged terrain in units 1 and 2 is free from disturbance, as well as the more wetland dominated areas in unit 5.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

50

Figure 18. Map of Human Disturbed Riparian Areas Across Terrestrial Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

51

Figure 19. Percentage of Natural and Non-natural Riparian Area Across Terrestrial Reporting Units.

4.8 Landscape Intactness

The effective mesh size analysis provides a useful assessment of landscape intactness across the watershed (Figure 20). Most of unit 1 remains fundamentally intact (Table 11), as are the peripheral regions to the north and south of unit 2 (Figure 21). Only the very northern tip of unit 3 contains any large patches of contiguous natural vegetation. Unit 4 retains an intact corridor associated with the Red Deer River, as well as a largely intact area in the central-east of the unit. Scattered intact areas are found throughout unit 5, concentrated in the north and east of the unit. However, many examples of areas with little to no natural cover are found throughout unit 4, to the west and far east of unit 5, and to the southwest of Red Deer itself, in unit 2 (Figure 20).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

52

Table 11. Relative Percentage of Intact Area in The Landscape per Reporting Unit, Based on the ABMI Human Footprint Layer. RDRW = Red Deer River Watershed.

Area of Landscape Intactness (Km2)Reporting Unit 0 0-0.1 0.1-1 1-10 >10 RDRW 9.2% 38.9% 22.9% 18.6% 10.4% 1 0.15% 5.2% 12.2% 20.5% 62.0% 2 5.6% 49.2% 20.9% 15.6% 8.7% 3 12.6% 67.4% 13.5% 5.3% 1.3% 4 14.6% 59.7% 19.2% 5.5% 1.0% 5 7.7% 18.1% 31.3% 34.8% 8.2%

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

53

Figure 20. Map Intactness of Natural Cover in the Red Deer River Watershed.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

54

Figure 21. Percentage of Landscape Intactness Classes (km2) Across Terrestrial Reporting Units.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

55

5. AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

5.1 Fish

Thirty-two different fish species have been observed and recorded in the Red Deer River. The most predominant species are mountain whitefish, longnose dace, and longnose sucker, whose population numbers seemed to have significantly stabilized over time (Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2009). Changes in the backwater areas of stream systems in the watershed have led to declines in northern pike, while walleye populations have seen an increase in numbers in the area below the dam towards Blindloss (Michael Sullivan Personal communication, 2014).

5.2 Benthic invertebrates

Although extensive research and documentation exists for benthic invertebrates in the Red Deer River watershed, the information has not yet been compiled into a single spatial dataset. The invertebrate community of the Red Deer River has been called the most diverse and abundant benthic invertebrate community when compared to the Bow, Oldman, South Saskatchewan, North Saskatchewan, Athabasca, and Beaver Rivers (Anderson, 1991). However, Cross (1991) indicated that the longitudinal zonation of benthic invertebrate communities in spring was similar to that seen in other rivers across different ecoregions in Alberta. However, these reports are based on invertebrate sampling efforts conducted in the late 1980s, and therefore may not represent the current conditions in the watershed.

Smith (2003) reported that the communities of benthic invertebrates found in the Red Deer River watershed were indicative of good water quality. Historically, the Red Deer River has maintained its benthic community composition and diversity throughout its length (Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2009). Those communities are mainly represented by the taxa Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera and Chironomidae (mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and midges, respectively). Nutrient enrichment, especially from municipal wastewater discharges, has induced measurable changes in invertebrate community composition below the discharge points (Cross, 1991; Shaw & Anderson, 1994). However, no current information is available to describe community responses since major upgrades took place at the City of Red Deer’s treatment plant, which now also treats wastewater from a number of adjacent municipalities. Longitudinal patterns in benthic invertebrate communities were altered by the Dickson Dam, as indicated by data collected from 1983-1987 (Anderson, 1991; Cross, 1991; Shaw & Anderson, 1994).

Golder Associates (Golder Associates Ltd., 2001, 2005) examined benthic invertebrate communities in the Red Deer River in Reach 3 (Red Deer to Drumheller) (Figure 10), as part of monitoring programs for chemical processing facilities effluent that discharge into the river. Overall, the studies indicated that the common invertebrates were similar to those of other large rivers in southern Alberta. Furthermore, the invertebrate community was indicative of a nutrient-enriched aquatic ecosystem on the basis of the dominance of taxa that are tolerant of mild enrichment and the very low abundance of more sensitive taxa such as Plecoptera (stoneflies). Golder (2001a) concluded that there was a small localized effect of the effluent from Red Deer to Drumheller on the benthic invertebrate community in the Red Deer River.

Effects of the NOVA effluent on benthic invertebrates were reportedly more notable; increasing abundance of Oligochaeta (worms), reductions in pollution-sensitive taxa, and a small reduction in taxonomic richness of the community were observed up to approximately 600 m downstream of the outfall (Golder 2001b). These effects were attributed to organic enrichment. The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera orders accounted for approximately 50% of the mean number of taxa. In general, there is insufficient data on benthic invertebrates for the Red Deer River (North/South Consultants Inc., 2007). Available information suggested that communities may be affected by point sources in some areas and that spatial differences along the length of the river may also reflect varying “natural” conditions (i.e., different ecoregions). Data were more numerous, however, for primary producers, most notably pigment levels of algae attached to rocks (epilithic algae). Epilithic chlorophyll-a levels indicate eutrophic conditions in the Red Deer River. Based on this information, conditions in the Red Deer River are “fair”(North/South Consultants Inc., 2007).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

56

5.3 Lake Status

All lake units are surrounded by significant amounts of agricultural land cover near the lake shore, which may influence water quality and impact the aquatic biodiversity of the lake itself. Sylvan Lake is the notable outlier of the five lakes, surrounded by substantial amounts of development and disturbed vegetation, as well as a large amount of forested cover. Other lakes include a substantial amount of grassland cover, especially Gough Lake. Sullivan Lake has the least amount of development in its surrounding watershed (Figure 22).

General descriptions of lake reporting units, including hydrological, water quality, limnological, and fisheries information, were primarily obtained from the Atlas of Alberta Lakes (Mitchell & Prepas, 1990).

5.3.1 Sylvan Lake

The Sylvan Lake lies in a preglacial valley. The dominant soils in the watershed are Orthic Gray Luvisols developed on weakly calcareous glacial till. Most of the Sylvan Lake area was originally mixedwood forest dominated by trembling aspen, but approximately 90% of the forest has been cleared for agriculture. Cereal grain, canola production, and mixed farming are the main land uses.

5.3.1.1 Hydrology and Chemistry

Sylvan Lake is generally flat, with a small area at the centre declining to the lake’s maximum depth of 18.3 m. At an elevation of 936.5 m, 20% of the lake is occupied by the littoral zone, which is less than 3.5 m deep. The inflowing streams flow only intermittently, with an outlet stream that enters the Cygnet Lake at the southeast, and then flows to the Red Deer River.

Sylvan Lake is a well-buffered freshwater lake. Its dominant ions are bicarbonate, sodium and magnesium. The lake’s high sodium and magnesium concentrations suggest a significant amount of groundwater inflow. Sylvan Lake is mesotrophic, where changes in phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations over the summer are similar to those in other well-mixed lakes in Alberta. While the phosphorus concentration peaks in August, the chlorophyll a concentration peaks in late August or September.

5.3.1.2 Aquatic Biology

The lake has little algal growth and few areas of dense aquatic macrophytes. Surveys conducted in 1976 (Jones, Beste, & Tsui, 1976) and 2004 (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2005) indicated that the phytoplankton community was dominated by golden-brown algae (Chyrysophyta). In late August, blue-green algae (Cyanophyta), particularly Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, were very abundant. Macrophytes occurred in patches in sheltered areas around the lake and grew densely in the northwest end. The most common emergent species were bulrush (Scirpus sp.) and common cattail (Typha latifolia). Submergent macrophytes included pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), water buttercup (Ranunculus circinata), Canada waterweed (Elodea canadensis) and the macroalga stonewort (Chara sp.). As of the 1976 survey (Jones et al., 1976), the dominant organism in the littoral zone was the amphipod Hyalella azteca, representing 92% of the invertebrate community. The dominant invertebrate in the profundal zone were midge larvae (Chironomidae), which made up over half of the community. Sphaeriid clams (Pelecypoda) were abundant in both the profundal and littoral regions.

5.3.1.3 Fish and Wildlife

Fish populations in the lake are thought to be limited by a shortage of weed beds, a lack of cover and shortage of spawning grounds. At least seven species of fish have been reported in Sylvan Lake: northern pike, yellow perch, walleye, burbout, lake trout, spottail shiners, and lake whitefish. The lake has few areas that are suitable for breeding or nesting waterfowl or for other aquatic wildlife. In most

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

57

areas the shore is too steep or has been altered by human use, making it inconducive to supporting wildlife habitat.

Figure 22. Percentage of Land Cover Classes Across Lake Reporting Units With a 1 km Buffer.

5.3.1.4 Management

The latest review of science based documents reveals that Sylvan Lake has become polluted over time (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2005). A recreationally desirable meso-eutrophic status is shifting to an undesirable eutrophic status. Recommendations include minimizing or eliminating high risk

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

58

practices within the watershed, such as....and implementing measuring and monitoring programs to track changes in lake water quality. The lack of a collective, modern strategic plan to guide the future development, use and conservation on Sylvan Lake is a significant concern (Planned Environmental Associates, 2006). Alberta’s Land Use Policy recommends cooperative and collective planning in situations where the responsibility of managing a resource overlaps with other governing bodies. In the case of Sylvan Lake, the current land use strategies affecting the watershed have evolved from rural land uses. Such strategies typically do not contemplate natural capital development and conservation to sustain the delivery of a variety of values to communities. As a consequence, “agriculturally assessed lands” are regularly converted to residential developments when market demand exists. Red Deer County has taken leadership on this issue and has adopted policies to direct cooperative development of the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan with Sylvan Lake and other affected municipalities (Planned Environmental Associates, 2006).

5.3.2 Gull Lake

Gull Lake is characterized by a large, shallow basin. Much of the land in the drainage basin has been cleared for cereal crops and cattle production. The native vegetation surrounging Gull Lake is typical of the Aspen Parkland and Boreal Mixedwood ecoregions, dominated by trembling aspen, white spruce and willow. The shoreline is sandy, but soft organic sediments have accumulated in the shallow water of protected bays. The greatest depth of the lake (8 m) covers a large area of the bottom in the centre area of the basin (Mitchell & Prepas, 1990).

5.3.2.1 Hydrology and Chemistry

The water level has been declining in Gull Lake since it was first recorded in 1924 (Williams Engineering Canada Inc., 2010). Now, in some areas, up to 400 metres of former lake bottom is exposed, measured perpendicular to the present shore line. The gradient is very low, and the water table is close to the surface, making it an attractive location for waterfowl and wildlife.

Gull Lake is slightly saline. Bicarbonate, sodium and sulphate are the dominant ions. Levels of dissolved oxygen are high throughout the water column. In winter, dissolved oxygen concentrations decline gradually. The relatively low concentrations of chlorophyll a in Gull Lake indicate that it is mesotrophic, although the phosphorous levels suggest it is a more productive lake. It is probable that some portion of the supply of total phosphorous to the lake is derived from its bottom sediments (internal phosphorus loading), as occurs in most shallow, productive lakes in Alberta. Increases in phosphorous and chlorophyll levels in summer may be the result of such internal loading. Overall, Gull Lake is classified as an eutrophic lake based on nutrient, chlorophyll and transparency criteria (Alberta Lake Management Society, 2006). The lake experiences occasional blooms of noxious algae, low winter oxygen concentrations. There has not been a significant decline in the water quality of the lake in recent years (Mitchell & LeClair, 2003). Levels of total phosphorous and chlorophyll a have not increased since monitoring began and, and phosphorous levels have remained fairly consistent since the 1970s.

5.3.2.2 Aquatic Biology

A survey conducted in 1969 indicated that green and blue-green algae were most abundant in June and blue-green algae (Anabaena flosaquae) dominated the phytoplankton community by mid-August. The biomass of phytoplankton was low through May and June, and green algae, diatoms (Baccillariophyta) and cryptophytes (Cryptophyta) were the dominant groups. The prevalent species included Ankyra judayii, Staurastrum sp., Rhodomonas minuta, Sphaerocystis schroeteri, Amphora ovalis and Asterionella formosa. By mid-July, the total biomass had increased considerably, and the dominant species were the diatoms Fragilaria crotonensis and Stephanodiscus niagarae, the green alga Mougeotia sp., and the blue-green alga Lyngbya Birgei. Mougeotia sp. maintained a high population through August, but Fragilaria crotonensis was replaced by F. capucina, and Ceratium hirundinella, a species of Pyrrhophya,

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

59

became dominant. In September and October, the species with the highest biomass was Fragilaria crotonensis, followed by Closterium acutum and Gomphosphaeria aponina.

Gull Lake supports extensive submergent macrophyte beds but emergent species such as common cattail, common great bulrush and sedge were found along only 30% of the shoreline in 1974. The subrmergent zone in Gull Lake was dominated by large-sheath pondweed (Potamageton vaginatus), and in many areas it was the sole species present. In shallow areas (less than 1 m deep) northern watermilfoil (Myriophyllum exalbescens) and Sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectniatus) were common.

A survey conducted in 1978 and 1979 indicated that large grazers, Daphnia pulicaria and Diaptomus sicilis, were abundant in the spring and early summer, but their populations were smaller through the remainder of the summer to the end of October. Large numbers of the rotifer Conochilus sp. were present in July. Seven other species of rotifers were observed sporadically throughout the summer. The predaceous copepod Diacyclops bicuspidatus thomasi was most abundant in spring and early summer, but was present throughout the entire open-water season. About 98% of the organisms collected were scuds and midge larvae.

5.3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife

The Red Deer River State of the Watershed Report identifies Gull Lake as one of the largest and most productive lakes in the Dry Mixedwood Subregion of Alberta for waterfowl and other migratory birds in need of staging grounds (Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2009). The area contains significant staging and production wetlands for waterfowl, marsh birds and shorebirds. Specifically, two large low-lying wet areas are identified directly to the north of the lake and to the east of the lake (Map 2). The Gull Lake area also contains foraging and loafing habitat for the American white pelican. The lake serves as a staging area during fall migration, and the marshy north end supports Ring-billed Gulls, Black Terns, Common Goldeneye, American Widgeons, Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, White-winged Scoters, Common Mergansers, Common Loons and Red-winged Blackbirds.

Among fish species, white suckers, northern pike, walleye, burbout, lake whitefish, spottail shiners and brook stickleback are known to inhabit Gull Lake.

5.3.2.4 Management

Gull Lake is known for its sandy beaches, a provincial park located on the southern portion of the lake, and its sport fishing. It supports many recreational activities such as boating, swimming, fishing, and sailing. The current policy document controlling land use and development is an intermunicipal development plan pertaining to the municipalities around Gull Lake (Williams Engineering Canada Inc., 2010). The plan addresses changes in development pressures, environmental issues, regulatory regimes, market demands, public attitudes and preferences around the lake. Drawing on public comments and input from stakeholders around Lacombe County, the plan recognizes that land use decisions within the watershed may adversely affect the lake. Therefore, consistency and a common vision shared by municipalities is necessary to ensure that Gull Lake remains a healthy and well-maintained asset within the Central Alberta region.

5.3.3 Buffalo Lake

Buffalo Lake is naturally divided into four areas:

1) Main Bay at the east end is the largest and deepest (maximum depth of 6.5 m) and supports most of the recreational activity on the lake;

2) Secondary Bay, to the west of Main Bay, is smaller and shallow (maximum depth of 2.5 m);

3) The Narrows is a channel west of Secondary Bay, which serves as a popular fishing area;

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

60

4) Parlby Bay is the smallest bay west of the Narrows. Due to its shallow depth (maximum depth of 1.1 m) and abundant aquatic plant populations, it provides excellent waterfowl habitat.

The drainage basin of Buffalo Lake is large (1440 km2) and consists of a gently rolling glacial till plain that slopes from an elevation of 975 m on the western boundary to 780 m at the lake. The drainage basin lies within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion, dominated by trembling aspen, wild rose and Saskatoon and with rough fescue grassland on drier, south facing slopes. Approximately 65% of the basin has been cleared for agriculture.

5.3.3.1 Hydrology and Chemistry

Buffalo Lake is 20.5 km long and 8.2 km wide at its widest point, with a moderately-sized surface area relative to its drainage basin. Almost all surface inflow to the lake enters at the west end of Parlby Bay through Parlby Creek. The contribution of groundwater inflow in maintaining the lake’s water balance is significant. Areas of artesian upwelling of groundwater are evident at the west end of the lake and along the north shore of Secondary Bay, as well as within the lake. There has been no surface outflow from Buffalo Lake since 1929. Groundwater outflow is very likely since the salinity of the lake is not as high as would be expected if evaporation were the only route for water leaving the lake.

Buffalo Lake is a “managed lake”. Its water levels and shorelands are controlled by provincial government policies that guide the operation of the Parlby Creek – Buffalo Lake Water Management System. Water from the Red Deer River is diverted to Buffalo Lake to restore historical water levels which are beneficial to shoreland and fish habitat and to support different recreational activities (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, 2010).

Buffalo Lake is a well-buffered, moderately saline lake. Its dominant ions are sodium, sulphate and bicarbonate. The salinity and the concentrations of most ions in the lake increase along a gradient from west to east. This gradient can be attributed to the different sources of water in the lake. The water is well-mixed vertically and usually not thermally stratified in the summer. In winter, dissolved oxygen concentrations are high (over 6 mg/L) down to a depth of 4 m. Buffalo Lake is mesotrophic, although the total phosphorous concentration in the lake is moderately high. The phosphorus gradient from west to east runs opposite to the gradient for most other ions. Both total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations increase over the summer, reaching a peak in August and September.

5.3.3.2 Aquatic Biology

Anabaena flos-aqua was the most abundant algae species sampled in several surveys; the codominant species were Microspora tumidula, Synechochystis sp., Oocystis parva, and Gomphosphaeria aponina and G. lacustris. There are no data for zooplankton in Buffalo Lake. Midge larvae were the dominant group of benthic invertebrates.

5.3.3.3 Fish and Wildlife

Buffalo Lake supports four species of fish: northern pike, burbot, white sucker and brook stickleback. All of these species are native to the lake and are tolerant of high salinity and alkalinity. The lake is also second only to Beaverhill Lake in its importance for waterfowl brood production, moulting and fall staging, and for nesting of colonial birds. Muskrats are plentiful in the area, especially along the north and west shores.

5.3.3.4 Management

Buffalo Lake is a popular lake under growth and development pressure from recreational users, cottage owners, and subdivision developers. If not properly managed, subdivision development and increased visitor use could adversely affect the lake by deteriorating water quality, degrading riparian areas and

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

61

impacting the plants and animals that depend on the lake and its shorelands. Clear management direction is needed by government agencies and municipalities to protect the health of Buffalo Lake. In 2010, the Government of Alberta published the Buffalo Lake Integrated Shoreland Management Plan (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, 2010) to manage current and future development pressures on Buffalo Lake and its ecology. The water level of the lake is closely tied to the Red Deer River. The water right-of-way that rings the lake reaches an elevation of 781.2 metres surrounding the lake, reflecting the 1:100 year flood zone. The resulting Crown land ranges in width from several metres to several hundred and “comprises approximately 1585 hectares” of littoral (wet) zone and riparian area. This area is advantageous to the province, as it plays a central role in helping to manage activities that are likely to undermine riparian function as well as fish and bird habitat.

5.3.4 Gough and Sullivan Lakes

There were no records or information in the Atlas of Alberta lakes pertaining to Gough and Sullivan lakes. Furthermore, there is very little information available describing the environmental conditions of the lakes. In contrast to Gough Lake and its land area, which have been cultivated, leaving little natural vegetation, the Sullivan Lake area has been designated by Ducks Unlimited Canada as a critical landscape in need of conservation and restoration. Sullivan Lake is at high risk of habitat loss from agriculture, petroleum development, road construction and rural subdivisions (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2014).

5.4 Land Cover Surrounding River Reaches

Substantial differences in land cover are visible between the different reaches (Figure 23). Reach 1 is bordered by the largest proportion of forest cover, and small examples of all other cover types. Reach 2 is bordered by wetlands, forest, developed areas and agriculture. Reach 3 is primarily bordered by agriculture. Reach 4 neighbours the greatest amount of developed area of all reaches, as well as some forest cover and a substantial amount of agricultural cover. Reach 5 is bordered by a substantial amount of unvegetated terrain, as well as grassland, forest and agriculture. Reach 6 borders the largest proportion of wetland and grassland cover of all the reaches, and the least amount of forest cover overall.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

62

Figure 23. Percentage of Land Cover Classes Across Reach Reporting Units With a 1 km Buffer.

5.5 Species

5.5.1 Species Richness

In general, and based on the ACIMS and FWMIS datasets, lake species diversity is low, with the notable exception of Buffalo Lake, where a large number of bird species have been recorded, as well as fish, amphibian and forb species (Figure 24, Table 12). Sullivan Lake has no records of fish species, and

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

63

Gough Lake has no recorded species at all — undoubtedly a function of low sampling effort. Information on macrophytes, phytoplankton and zooplankton in this lake has not been collated to date, and represents a substantial data gap in assessing present lake biodiversity.

Table 12. Species Richness of Major Lakes.

Name richness bird fish amphibian forb

Sullivan Lake 3 3 0 0 0

Sylvan Lake 9 1 7 1 0

Buffalo Lake 123 113 6 2 2

Gull Lake 17 8 9 0 0

Gough Lake 0 0 0 0 0

With regard to the Red Deer River, the highest species richness has been observed in Reach 6, with Reach 3 a close second place. Reach 6 is dominated by fish species records, while Reach 3 contains more bird species (Figure 25, Table 13).

Table 13. Species Richness of River Reaches.

Name richness mammal fish arthropod bird amphibian reptile lichen sedge

Reach 1 - Headwaters to Hwy 22 14 0 10 0 0 0 0 3 1

Reach 2 - Hwy 22 - Gleniffer Lake 19 4 11 0 4 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 - Gleniffer Lake to Hwy 2 47 0 19 0 25 2 1 0 0

Reach 4 - Hwy 2 to Nevis 35 0 21 0 13 0 1 0 0

Reach 5 - Nevis to Morrin 23 1 18 0 4 0 0 0 0

Reach 6 - Morrin to Bindloss 50 11 24 2 8 3 2 0 0

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

64

Figure 24. Map of Species Richness Across Aquatic Units (i.e., Reaches and Lakes) in the Red Deer River Watershed.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

65

5.5.2 Species At Risk

Sullivan Lake contains observations of Burrowing Owls and Loggerhead Shrike. At Buffalo Lake, there have been observations of Northern Leopard Frog, Sprague’s Pipit and Piping Plover. Gull Lake also contains observations of Piping Plover (Table 14; Appendix 2).

Bull Trout and Mountain Sucker are found in Reaches 1 and 2, Mountain Sucker in Reach 3, Lake Sturgeon and Peregrine Falcons have been observed in Reach 4, Peregrine Falcon in Reach 5, and Lake Sturgeon, Loggerhead Shrike and the Great Plains Toad have been observed in and around Reach 6 (Appendix 3).

Table 14. Species At Risk By Lake and River Reach Units.

Name Species At Risk

Sullivan Lake Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead Shrike

Sylvan Lake -

Buffalo Lake Northern Leopard Frog, Sprague’s Pipit, Piping Plover

Gull Lake Piping Plover

Gough Lake -

Reach 1 - Headwaters to Hwy 22 Bull Trout, Mountain Sucker

Reach 2 - Hwy 22 - Gleniffer Lake Bull Trout, Mountain Sucker

Reach 3 - Gleniffer Lake to Hwy 2 Mountain Sucker

Reach 4 - Hwy 2 to Nevis Lake Sturgeon, Peregrine Falcon

Reach 5 - Nevis to Morrin Peregrine Falcon

Reach 6 - Morrin to Bindloss Lake Sturgeon, Loggerhead Shrike, Great Plains Toad

5.6 Terrain Conditions

Sylvan Lake contains the most complex surrounding terrain, and its terrestrial biodiversity is likely to be the most sensitive to development disturbances. Buffalo Lake contains a number of steep slopes, but for the most part, the terrain surrounding these lakes is relatively flat (Figure 25).

Reaches 4 and 5 are surrounded by the most complex terrain, while the areas surrounding Reach 2 and 3 are comparatively flat (Figure 26). The upper portions of Reach 1 are also quite steep, but become less so as the area opens up into the foothills.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

66

Figure 25. Percentage Area of Slope Classes Across Lake Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

67

Figure 26. Percentage Area of Slope Classes Across Reach Reporting Units in the Red Deer River Watershed.

5.7 Landscape Intactness

Buffalo Lake, Gough Lake and Sullivan Lake all contain large areas of intact natural cover (Figure 27), although no natural patches over 10 km2 currently occur in the area. Sylvan Lake in particular, contains

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

68

no patches over 1 km2, while Gull Lake and Sullivan Lake contain regions that are completely dominated by human footprint.

Reach 1 contains the most intact natural cover surrounding it (Figure 28). Only Reach 1 and 6 have neighbouring natural patches greater than 10 km2, while Reach 3 and 4 have few patches greater than 1 km2. Only Reach 3 contains areas with complete human footprint cover (in and around the city of Red Deer).

Figure 27. Percentage of Landscape Intactness Classes (Km2) Across Lake Reporting Units With a 1 km Buffer.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

69

Figure 28. Percentage of Landscape Intactness Classes (km2) Across Reach Reporting Units with a 1 km Buffer.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

70

6. TOOLS AND CHALLENGES FOR BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT

6.1 Synthesis of Current Policy and Management Issues

Key pieces of Alberta’s current legislation related to biodiversity management include (Alberta ESRD, 2014c):

Public Lands Act and Public Lands Administration Regulation. Provides for the setting of land disturbance standards and land conservation tools in support of biodiversity management

Provincial Parks Act. Plays an important role in protecting natural diversity and intact habitat for supporting biodiversity, in addition to ensuring a wide range of recreation opportunities and tourism experiences

Water Act. Provides for the allocation and use of Alberta’s water resources and the protection of rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands

Wildlife Act. Provides for harvesting limits and designation and recovery of species at risk

Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Provides for the assessment and regulation of activities to minimize their environmental impacts, based on principles including continuous improvement and pollution prevention

Climate Change and Emissions Management Act. Provides for the management and reporting of emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other specified gases, and requires measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for specified activities

Forests Act. Provides for the sustainable management of Alberta’s forests, including a legislated requirement for reforestation

In addition to legislation, a number of strategies — such as the Clean Air Strategy, Water for Life, Gene Conservation Plan for Native Trees of Alberta, Alberta’s Plan for Parks and the Land-use Framework — provide high-level goals for air, water, land and biodiversity management and specify how Alberta will achieve these goals.

6.1.1 Parks/Protected Areas

Approximately 3.1% of the RDRW consist of parks and protected areas. Banff National Park covers over 1,027 km2 in the Upper Headwaters. There are 57 provincial parks and protected areas in the watershed, including 10 Provincial Parks, 1 Wildland Provincial Park, 26 Natural Areas, 17 Public Recreational Areas, 2 Ecological Reserves, and 1 Wilderness Area (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013b). A portion of the lower Red Deer River valley including Dinosaur Provincial Park and some limited surrounding areas is designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

6.1.1.1 Prescribed Burns in Protected Areas

Fire has shaped Alberta’s forests for generations. Fires recycle nutrients, help plants reproduce, create a mosaic of vegetation types, and provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The exclusion of fire from the landscape by people has contributed to an increase in the overall age of forests, which has contributed to a decrease in biodiversity and forest health. For instance, the absence of natural fires has paved the way for insect outbreaks (e.g., mountain pine beetle) and large-scale uncontrollable wildfires (Parks Canada, 2012).

A prescribed burnis an intentional fire planned and managed by fire specialists. Parks Canada conducts prescribed burns in the uppermost portions of the RDRW to restore ecological integrity and natural processes in Banff National Park. The province has also conducted prescribed burns. Although these activities are planned and conducted carefully, it is possible that they may generate risks to watershed values downstream.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

71

6.1.2 Local policies

A search for the word “biodiversity” was conducted among the eight largest municipalities in the RDRW. While the inclusion of environment and protection of natural resources was clear in all jurisdictions, the Counties of Red Deer and Mountain View, City of Brooks, and Towns of Strathmore and Blackfalds did not mention the word biodiversity in their municipal development plans.

In contrast, the County of Rocky View cites biodiversity as part of the benefits of wetland and riparian areas conservation (Rocky View County, 2013). The Town of Sylvan Lake 2013 draft Municipal Development Plan includes biodiversity as one of the key points of community concern under the Natural Environment Section (Parkland Cummunity Planning Services, 2013). The City of Red Deer is the only municipality that includes the concept of biodiversity at a policy level: policy 9.11 (from the Environmental and Ecological Management section) indicates that the City of Red Deer should establish a stewardship program with residents that would include biodiversity (The City of Red Deer, 2008).

6.1.3 Regional Planning

Alberta’s Land-Use Framework (LUF) calls for the development of regional plans for seven new land use regions, the Red Deer River Region included. The seven regions are congruent with the province's major watersheds and align with municipal boundaries. The government plans to create Biodiversity Management Frameworks for each of the seven planning regions under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act. The government will likely release the first Biodiversity Management Framework for the Lower Athabasca Region (slated for release by end of year 2013), as well as the second for the South Saskatchewan Region in 2014. Each region is expected to have its own biodiversity priorities and indicators, although some indicators will be province-wide.

In the current draft of the SSRP, biodiversity takes the top of eight Strategic Directions for the Region that comprise the Strategic Plan section: Conserving and Maintaining the Benefits of Biodiversity. Under the Implementation Plan section, biodiversity is included as the second outcome of Strategies and Outcomes: Biodiversity. Appendix F of the Plan corresponds to an overview of the biodiversity management framework, which includes regional objectives, indicators and targets, methodologies to establish targets for biodiversity indicators, management approaches, and a monitoring approach. Development of the SSRP and content related to biodiversity is particularly relevant to the RDRW, given the proximity of the area and similarities in terms of environment and socioeconomics.

Contrasting with the draft of the SSRP, the approved Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (GOA, 2012) places biodiversity, together with air, water and land disturbance, in the strategic portion of the plan. The implementation portion of the plan positions biodiversity along with ecosystems function.

The Red Deer Region is bordered by the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the east, goes to the westerly edge of Mountain View County, south of Iddesleigh and to the most northerly boundary of Ponoka County. Red Deer is the region’s largest city. This region is about 5,033,751 hectares in total. The plan for the Red Deer Region has yet to commence.

6.1.4 White and Green Areas

Land-use decisions made in Alberta today are shaped by the government’s 1948 initiative to divide the province into the white and green areas. The white area covers about 39% of the province. It is largely comprised of land owned by individuals and groups (homeowners, farmers, companies, organizations, etc.). Generally, ownership rights are limited to the land surface and do not include subsurface, non-renewable natural resources. While private landowners can make decisions about how to use and manage their land, they must follow laws, bylaws and regulations set out by municipal and provincial governments (GOA, 2008a).

The green area covers about 61 per cent of the province, mainly in the north and along the Eastern Slopes. It is largely owned by the provincial Crown and is referred to as public land. It is set aside

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

72

primarily for renewable and non-renewable resource development, limited grazing, conservation, and recreational use. The provincial government is mandated to manage public land use (GOA, 2008a).

The green area (unsettled) and the white area (settled) regions in Alberta differ significantly by extent, land ownership, population, land use type, authority to set regulations, and ecosystem types (Table 15). Because the areas are based on settlement and land use patterns, the boundaries will likely change over time. Management and conservation strategies would need to follow suit and hence, the use of natural boundaries (based on Alberta Natural Regions and Sub-regions), rather than the green and white areas, may be more appropriate for biodiversity assessment, monitoring, and management (Locky, 2011).

Table 15. Key Aspects of White and Green Areas in Alberta (GOA, 2008a).

White Area Green Area Settled lands Forested lands

Covers about 39 per cent of Alberta Covers about 61 per cent of Alberta

Three-quarters privately owned by more than 1.7 million individual title holders (50,000 own or use most of the land for agriculture)

Nearly all publicly owned

Primarily in the populated central, southern and Peace River areas

Primarily in northern Alberta, some in the mountains and foothills

Main land uses: settlements, agriculture, oil and gas development, tourism and recreation, conservation of natural spaces, and fish and wildlife habitat

Main land uses: timber production and other wood products, oil and gas development, tourism and recreation, conservation of natural spaces, watershed protection, and fish and wildlife habitat

Authority to set regulations and make decisions is primarily with municipal governments on private land and with the provincial government on public land

Authority to set regulations and make decisions is primarily with the provincial government

6.1.5 East Slope policy

The Eastern Slopes of Alberta's Rocky Mountains cover an area of approximately 90,000 km2 of mainly forest-covered mountains and foothills. Since the late 1970s, the impacts of land use change and pressures for resource extraction were identified as significant to the environmental quality and management of this region (GOA, 1984). The upper watersheds of the Eastern Slopes are the source of water for a number of downstream needs including agricultural, municipal, and aquatic ecosystem needs. Protecting watersheds in the Eastern Slopes is especially important for downstream water users. In 1977, a Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes (the Eastern Slopes Policy) was approved. It was revised in 1984 (GOA, 1984). The revised Eastern Slopes Policy included the following objectives for the region:

Ensure that wildlife populations are protected from severe decline and viable populations are maintained;

Maintain wildlife on the basis of fundamental ecological principles;

Maintain areas of wilderness or primitive character.

The policy is intended to guide public lands and resource management within the eastern slopes region. The policy describes the concept of land use zonation and compatible uses which should be implemented in the development of Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plans.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

73

6.1.6 Wetlands

On September 10, 2013, the Government of Alberta released the Alberta Wetland Policy, which considers the core principles of Alberta’s Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability (released in 2003 and renewed in 2008). The implementation plan for the new policy will be released for the White Zone (settled and agricultural areas) by August 2014 and for the Green Zone (primarily Crown-owned land in the northern part of the province) by August 2015.

The goals of the Wetland Policy will be integrated into the Government of Alberta's policies, programs, initiatives, and directives, to ensure a coordinated approach to wetland management across the province. The policy, especially the Wetland Mitigation Decision Framework, will be incorporated into the Government's regulatory process to ensure compliance, and will be incorporated into local government (municipalities, First Nations', and Métis Settlements) processes to ensure integration across all levels of government with respect to regional variations in impacts, needs, and local environments.

The new, comprehensive policy abandoned previous “no-net loss” provisions, and moved from an area-based compensation to a function-based replacement (biodiversity being one of the functions assessed). This replacement approach will no longer be based on a 3:1 ratio for restoration. Instead, it will follow a sliding scale from a ratio of 8:1 to 0.125:1 based on functionality. Non-restorative replacement is also an option.

To ensure strategic alignment of The Alberta Wetland Policy, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA) has advocated that municipalities should take strong a leadership role in water management and water management principles used to guide environmental policy development in Alberta. For example, some of the roles municipalities would like to play, assuming appropriate resources and support are available include:

Leading in responsible water management — water conservation, efficiency and productivity, and maintaining healthy aquatic ecosystems

Engaging in shaping water policies and legislation, and having the authority and resources for effective monitoring, reporting and enforcement in conjunction with other orders of government

Partnering in the implementation of provincial and regional land and watershed management plans that reduce the cumulative effects of development on aquatic ecosystems (AUMA, 2013)

Currently, several Alberta municipalities have developed their own wetland conservation strategies and policies. Novel wetland development and mitigation projects initiated by municipalities exemplify the importance of a distinct wetlands policy in areas where wetland losses have been historically high.

6.1.7 Actual Presence of Biodiversity in Current Policies or Management Plans

In late 1995, the Government of Alberta committed to using the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy as a guide for conserving biodiversity and ensuring the sustainable use of biological resources. The province uses four indicator themes to evaluate and manage the status of biodiversity in Alberta:

Condition

Pressure

Response

Performance

With the exception of the condition theme, the latter three themes still lack specific indicators (Alberta ESRD, 2014a).

Condition indicators reflect the susceptibility of biodiversity to change in the presence of various pressures (Alberta ESRD, 2014a). Condition indicators may illustrate changes in biological productivity, species richness, or Species at Risk (Alberta ESRD, 2014b). Changes in condition may be independent of local pressures, or highly dependent on management practices.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

74

Pressure indicators are related to industrial and residential development, habitat fragmentation, population growth, or consumption. Environmental and other monitoring databases are used to derive pressure indicators such as invasive species, habitat loss and fragmentation. To date, no pressure indicators have been developed by the province (Alberta ESRD, 2014e).

Response indicators are related to the actions taken to mitigate loss of, or protect biodiversity. Such actions might be related to land use (e.g., wetland or habitat restoration), species protection via management plans, or habitat protection via preservation mechanisms (e.g., protected areas, invasive species management plans). Responses should be designed to act on the pressures that have been identified in a particular region. To date, no response indicators have been developed for the province (Alberta ESRD, 2014f).

Performance indicators measure the success of management actions on enhancing biodiversity. Such management actions might include endangered species action plans, species at risk recovery plans, biodiversity stewardship initiatives, or conservation programs and policies. No performance indicators have been developed to date (Alberta ESRD, 2014d).

The condition indicators of biodiversity in Alberta are related to species at risk. This indicator includes eight groups of organisms:

Amphibians

Freshwater fish

Orchids

Ferns

Mammals

Butterflies

Reptiles

Birds

The Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (Species at Risk Public Registry, 2006) is an agreement by provincial, territorial, and federal ministers responsible for wildlife. The Accord requires parties to "monitor, assess, and report regularly on the status of all wild species." Alberta works with other Canadian jurisdictions through two national committees: the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and the Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW). Positive gains have been made in the conservation and recovery of species at risk in Alberta; however, continued emphasis is needed to prevent more species from becoming at risk. Some successes include:

Western blue flag removed from threatened list

Peregrine falcon moved from endangered to threatened

Reduction of piping plover mortality with predator closures on nests

Re-introduction of swift fox, which was thought to have disappeared from Alberta

6.1.8 Navigation Protection Act (Formerly Navigable Waters Protection Act)

In 2002, The Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) was described as a "federal statute designed to protect the public’s right to navigation and marine safety in the navigable waters of Canada." The Act was administered by the Navigable Waters Protection Program (NWPP) under the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In 2006, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) became responsible for the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Fisheries Act. Prior to the amendments in 2009, the NWPA considered impacts on navigation and the environment. Those who wanted to build in, on or over Canadian waterways triggered an environmental assessment approval process under the Act. Under the 2009 amendments, the word ‘waters’ was removed from the

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

75

title of the Act and the legislation was renamed as the Navigation Protection Act (NPA). The amendment also has no mention of environment as such but several sections address environmental protection. As a consequence, the Minor Works and Waters Order was passed to provide for exempting minor works and waters from the Act's application. In 2012, the Act was amended by the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 to provide for:

Limitation of the Act’s application to works in certain navigable waters that are set out in its schedule

Application to certain works in other navigable waters, with the approval of the Minister of Transport

Assessment process for certain works and to provide that works that are assessed as likely to substantially interfere with navigation require the Minister’s approval

Administrative monetary penalties and additional offences

The amendments came into effect in April 2014 (Minister of Transport, 2014).

6.1.9 Fisheries Act

As part of its Omnibus Budget Bill in 2012, the federal government passed significant changes to the Fisheries Act that came into effect November 25 (Jobs Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, 2013). The changes marked the end of the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (the HADD Provision). Previously, the Fisheries Act applied to all fish bearing waters in Canada. Now, protection is limited to only commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries. This suggests that the government has overlooked the fact that a fishery can be valuable for ecological reasons (without having value as a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery). In addition, under the new provision, the permissible degree of harm is much higher (Heelan, 2013).The Fisheries Act now prohibits fish deaths or the permanent alteration or destruction of habitat (as opposed to harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat). The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has published several supplements and supporting documents following the changes to the Fisheries Act:

Fisheries Protection Policy Statement Operational approach for implementing the changes Guidance for existing and new authorizations from the department Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting

6.2 Key Biodiversity Issues

The following primary issues present key challenges in the maintenance of biodiversity in the Red Deer River Watershed.

6.2.1 Habitat Loss and Connectivity Issues

Estimates of landscape connectivity are derived from the analysis of the spatial arrangement of habitat availability and fragmentation. As such, the notion of biodiversity as inversely related to habitat fragmentation and human-built infrastructure is widely recognized (Forman, 1995; Franklin, 1993; Theobald et al., 2012). In this particular case, the management of biodiversity and connectivity across the landscape in the RDRW could benefit from a non-species specific approach to depict critical arrangements of biodiversity. A map of landscape intactness (or integrity as an inverse of human-influenced landscape) is a useful first step (Figure 21) to understand connectivity issues in the RDRW. However, an assessment of landscape connectivity, including critical patterns, issues and potential directions to management, would require further modelling. Hence, landscape connectivity is included as part of the follow-up recommendations in this report (Table 19).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

76

6.2.2 Invasive Alien Species

In the community workshops held in 2011, members of the public listed invasive plants as a significant area of concern in the watershed (RDRWA, 2011). This indicates a growing recognition that invasive species have a global and local impact on the economy, social values, and the natural environment. However, there are still gaps in our knowledge of invasive species and their impacts on Alberta’s economy. The Alberta government is following a collaborative approach to invasive species management. Specific actions from the Alberta government include the Alberta Invasive Alien Species Management Framework Assessment Tool (GOA, 2010a), and provincial legislation to weed control such as the Weed Control Act (GOA, 2011). The Alberta Invasive Alien Species Management Framework Assessment Tool aims to facilitate management of the risks of invasive alien species by focusing on provincial initiatives, which include most Government of Alberta ministries involved in land or resource management.

Despite its importance, the management of invasive alien species in Alberta is not as comprehensive or well developed as it should be given the potential adverse impacts of invasive species on biodiversity. Current records of invasive alien species are sparse, weighted towards plant/weed control, and lack information on distribution or abundance of invasive species. Relevant resources for invasive alien species management are the Alberta Invasive Plant Identification Guide (Wheatland County, 2012), and the Alberta Invasive Species Council website (https://www.abinvasives.ca/).

Currently, the province is in the process of developing an Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Program. Priority areas include: early detection, monitoring, inspections (boats), education and outreach, and collaboration (particularly between the US and adjacent provinces). Of particular concern are Zebra and Quagga mussels, Eurasian Watermilfoil (Alberta Tourism Parks and Recreation, 2014), and Lyngbye cyanobacteria (Kirkwood, Shea, Jackson, & McCauley, 2007). Current policies in place that address aquatic invasive species include:

The Alberta Weed Control Act

Schedule 1: Eurasian watermilfoil, purple loosestrife, flowering rush, Himalayan balsam

The Alberta Fisheries Act

42: Restricted possession: zebra mussels and sea lamprey

32(2): Threats to fish health: Ministerial Order, quagga mussels, authority to Fishery Officers

Additional provincial legislation related to aquatic invasive species include:

Agricultural Pests Act (allows the minister to declare animals, plants, birds, insects or diseases to be "pests" and to eradicate them or prevent their establishment)

Code of Practice for Pesticides (details the safe handling, use and application of pesticides to ensure environmental protection. Section 11 deals with Forest Management Pesticide use and Section 12 involves Industrial Vegetation Management)

Fisheries (Alberta) Act, Regulation (controls the import of fish eggs and live fish)

Forest and Prairie Protection Act (section 28 regulates forest pest control)

Forest Act, Timber Management Regulation (sections 164.1 (1) (2) and (3) describe importation of logs or other forest products into Alberta that may carry insects and disease)

Public Lands Act (lists the duties of the land-holder with regard to seed and weeds)

Wildlife Act (controls the possession, import and export of wildlife. The Wildlife Regulation prohibits import, export and possession of wildlife without a permit)

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

77

6.2.3 Land Cover Health

The forest health program under Alberta ESRD is responsible for monitoring and managing the biological, physiological, and environmental factors that may have an adverse effect on the health of the forest, which can include:

Insects

Nematodes

Microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, fungi)

Parasitic plants

Mammals

Birds

Noxious and restricted weeds

Non-infectious disorders caused by climate, soil, applied chemicals, air pollutants and other physiographic conditions

Alberta ESRD provides Spatial Wildfire Data and Forest Pest Survey Data as ESRI® ArcGIS shapefiles. Information relevant to the RDRW includes six wildfires that took place since 2010, as well as general forest health, which indicates a series of blowdowns that took place in 2010.

There are no reports addressing grasslands or wetlands health in the RDRW. Although grasslands health assessments are well standardized (e.g., Rangeland Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest and Tame Pasture, Government of Alberta, revised in 2009) CPAWS (2011) suggest that a new rangeland assessment protocol that includes biodiversity (and ecosystem services) would more accurately depict the role of grazing in the health of the ecosystems by not simply considering the capacity of the land to be used for grazing. A revised protocol that includes such components would help to guide better sustainable rangeland management.

6.2.4 Climate Change and Extreme Events

In recent years, the occurrences of extreme events such as ice storms, droughts and floods have been on the rise worldwide and have been recorded recently in Alberta as well. Information available does not allow direct links between biodiversity in the RDRW and extreme events. However, sources relevant to biodiversity such as past and future weather trends, along with land cover functional responses (e.g., evapotranspiration, primary production and leaf area index) in the RDRW could be incorporated and modelled by employing satellite image inventories and climate databases.

Recently, Schneider (2013) developed a report on Alberta’s Natural Sub-regions under climate change projections with the following highlights that relate to the RDRW current land cover types. It is important to clarify that although overall precipitation is projected to increase, most climate models predict that Alberta will become substantially drier in coming decades and hence, the scenarios presented are characterized by a an overall drying trend in the future:

Grassland and Parkland. Under a cool model scenario, representing the least amount of predicted climate change, the Grassland and Parkland shift roughly one Sub-region northward by the 2050s. Communities representing the warm and dry end of the environmental spectrum within a given Sub-region will increase, at the expense of communities on the cool and wet end of the spectrum. The mechanism underlying these changes is mainly competition. Under a hot model, the Parkland will experience the climate of the Dry Mixedgrass by the 2080s. The Dry Mixedgrass in turn will become similar to the driest parts of Wyoming and southern Idaho, where the vegetation is dominated by sage-brush species that are adapted to extreme aridity. This suggests that immigration of species exotic to Alberta will become an important factor under a Hot scenario. What is unclear is whether the rate of species adaptation or migration will be able

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

78

to keep up with the rate of climate change. Another issue to consider is species dissociation, which refers to potential for processes desynchronization such as presence of pollinators when blooms occur. Under a warmer climate, prairie wetlands will experience reduced runoff and groundwater flows because of regional drying due to increased evapotranspiration. They will also experience increased losses to evaporation, caused by earlier spring melt and higher summer temperatures. As a result, it is expected that the average water level of wetlands will decline and the amount of time that seasonal wetlands are dry will increase.

Dry mixedwood. Under a Cool model the Dry Mixedwood region will experience a Parkland climate by mid-century. This will cause an expansion of the small grasslands that already exist along the Peace River lowlands, as well as the appearance of scattered grassy openings elsewhere in the aspen forest. Under a Hot model, the aspen would have limited capacity for regeneration. Therefore, widespread transitions to grass are possible after mid-century, at a rate largely determined by the rate of disturbance. Drought, insects, and possibly fire, will be the leading agents of disturbance, opening and expanding gaps in the aspen forest.

Central Mixedwood. The pattern of change in the Central Mixedwood will be strongly influenced by elevation. Lower elevation areas are warmer and will become moisture limited first, beginning with the lowlands along the Peace and Athabasca Rivers. Higher elevation areas will follow. Under a Cool model, the Dry Mixedwood appears in low elevation regions along the Peace and Athabasca Rivers by the 2020s and extends across most of the Sub-region by the 2050s. Under a Hot model, almost the entire Central Mixedwood will experience a Grassland climate envelope by the 2050s. Successional transitions will mainly manifest after the mature trees have been killed by fire or other disturbance. In stands that have been killed by fire, successional patterns are expected to be complex. There is likely to be some influx of pioneer species and those adapted to dry conditions, but also some regeneration back to spruce and aspen. Peatlands occupy 45% of the Central Mixed-wood but only 15% of the Dry Mixedwood. Therefore, a transition to the warmer and drier climate of the Dry Mixedwood, as expected under a Cool model, implies that approximately two-thirds of the peatlands in the Central Mixedwood will dry out and undergo succession to a wooded ecosystem. Given the large extent of the Central Mixed-wood (about 25% of Alberta), this translates into more than 50,000 km2 of new terrestrial habitat. It is unclear how quickly the drying will occur — a time lag can be expected because of the ability of peat to absorb and store water during wet periods. As the drying progresses, succession to shrubs and then black spruce forest will follow rapidly.

Foothills. The main change that can be expected in the Lower Foothills by the 2080s, is a general increase in ecological diversity, as species from the Central Mixedwood, Montane, and the Foothills Fescue (to a limited degree) increase in abundance while a legacy of existing Foothills species (especially lodgepole pine) remains intact in favourable sites and in areas that have escaped disturbance. Fire and mountain pine beetle are both important agents of change. Under a Hot model, the southern part of the Lower Foothills becomes moisture limited as a result of increased evapotranspiration by the 2050s, and the entire Sub-region is moisture limited by the 2080s. Because successional transitions are limited by the rate of disturbance, it is unlikely that widespread changes (or loss of initial forest conditions) will occur by the end of the century.

Montane. With climate warming, the grasslands found at lower elevations and dry sites within the Montane will expand into higher elevations. Under a Cool model, at least some parts of the Sub-region should remain forested by the 2080s. But under a Hot model, it is likely that most of the Sub-region will transition to grasslands.

Rocky Mountains. Vegetative communities in the Rocky Mountains will generally shift to higher elevations as the climate warms. However, species do not all move at the same rate, and local site conditions, snow pack, and disturbance history affect patterns of advance, both at treeline and at lower elevations. Therefore, the Alpine, Subalpine, and Upper Foothills will not move upslope as intact units. Instead, the vegetative patterns of the Sub-regions will blend as the climate warms, increasing ecological diversity (though not permanently).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

79

6.2.5 Wetlands health

A variety of wetland inventories have been completed in Alberta. High resolution wetland inventory was undertaken primarily in the white zone (settled and agricultural areas) in the southern part of the province (GOA, 2010b). In the green zone, which falls primarily in the boreal forest and northern part of the province, wetland inventories are focused on classifying the different types of wetlands. This inventory identifies wetlands to a minimum of five different types based on the Canadian Wetland Classification System including bog, fen, swamp, marsh, and shallow open water wetlands. In southern Alberta (GeoDiscover Alberta, 2012), approximately 64% of wetlands have disappeared since settlement, which translates in loses of approximately 0.3-0.5% of wetlands each year. The causes for wetland loss include: drought, population growth, industrial development, land use changes, and management practices and policies (GOA, 2010b). Despite the lack of information targeting the health of wetlands in Alberta or the RDRW, wetland characterization and protection is a key theme in the province. The Bow River Basin Watershed Management Plan includes wetland health inventory and classification as one of the stepping stones for wetlands protection (BRBC, 2008).

6.2.6 Water Quality

6.2.6.1 Reaches

Based on the report on an initial assessment of aquatic health in the Red Deer River watershed (North/South Consultants Inc., 2007), water quality was rated “good” in their first monitored three reaches, deteriorating slightly to a rank of “fair” in the most downstream reach. The Red Deer River is oligotrophic, based on nutrient concentrations, near its headwaters but becomes more nutrient-rich as the river moves downstream.

Total phosphorus and nitrogen levels increase notably with increasing distance downstream, although data from 1999 to 2003 indicate that total phosphorus remains fairly constant in the middle reaches but increases significantly closer to the provincial border (Cross, 1991; North/South Consultants Inc., 2007).

Increased winter flow due to the construction of the Dickson Dam has improved dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the Red Deer River, although some low levels below the 1-day minimum guideline of 5 mg/L (Alberta Environment, 1999) were still detected even after the increased flow (Shaw & Anderson, 1994). Increased flow can augment the DO levels only to a degree, and if the point source loading continues to increase in the Red Deer River, low DO concentrations may become more frequent (Clipperton, Koning, Locke, Mahoney, & Quazi, 2003). In addition to increased winter flows due to the dam, substantial upgrading of the sewage treatment process at Red Deer municipal wastewater treatment plant has also helped reduce oxygen depletion. In general, the Red Deer River is well oxygenated. There are occasional occurences of low DO at sites located between the City of Red Deer and the eastern border (towards Nevis) but the events are restricted to winter. The river is somewhat alkaline and occasional excursions beyond the Alberta Environment water quality guideline for pH for the protection of aquatic life occurred at all long-term river monitoring sites. The lowest compliance rate occurred at Bindloss (61%) (North/South Consultants Inc., 2007).

Some water quality parameters increase notably near the border at Blindloss, including total suspended and dissolved solids, aluminum, iron, manganese, and total phosphorus and nitrogen. This is believed to reflect geology and sediment re-suspension. There was insufficient information to assess the current aquatic ecosystem health (AEH) of the Red Deer River on the basis of sediment quality. The implications of water quality objectives on the management of the RDRW (Anderson, 2012) indicate deteriorating trends for several water quality indicators: total nitrogen, (nitrite+nitrate)-nitrogen, ammonia, and total dissolved solids. Additionally, other indicators exceed the most sensitive guidelines at one or more locations with long-term monitoring data: fecal coliform bacteria, E. Coli, and dissolved oxygen. The latter suggests a need to better understand loading patterns in the RDRW in order to make informed decisions about selecting and implementing the most effective load reduction measures to correct deteriorating trends. A more comprehensive understanding of loading patters will also enable compliance with site-specific water quality objectives at long-term monitoring sites. Anderson (2012)

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

80

suggests investigating the relative influence of loadings from natural and man-made point and non-point sources on river water quality in each reach and under a range of river flows. It is important to note that Anderson’s (2012) data preceded upgrades at the Red Deer Wastewater Treatment Plant and changes in sewage handling at nearby municipalities. Therefore, current water quality conditions may differ.

Agriculture is prominent throughout the RDRW, with the exception of the upper reach in the mountain and foothills regions. Given agriculture’s prominence in the region, nutrients are a particular concern. Furthermore, because the Red Deer River lacks “large” tributaries (Rood, George, & Tymensen, 2002), assessments of agricultural impacts on the Red Deer River mainstem, including Blindman River and Threehills Creek, are challenging. Major point sources (>200,000 m3/year) in the RDRW include a number of municipal wastewater plants, gas/petrochemical processing plants, water discharge cooling ponds, and irrigation return flows (North/South Consultants Inc., 2007).

6.2.7 Lakes

Water quality information related to the trophic status of lakes or general water quality of lakes and reservoirs in the RDRW is available through Alberta ESRD (data from 1978 to 2009). An in-depth analysis of trends and gaps could be performed to determine the current status, indicators, and thresholds for functional biodiversity in the RDRW. Although water quality analysis is out of the scope of the present report, valuable information could be found in Water Quality Conditions and Long-Term Trends in Alberta Lakes (Casey, 2011).

6.2.8 Water Quantity

There is agreement among scientists that the natural flow variability of a system should be maintained or replicated to protect the biodiversity and ecological services of a river system (Arthington, Bunn, Poff, & Naiman, 2006). The important hydrologic components in a system include magnitude, frequency, timing, duration, rate of change, and predictability of flow events. The natural flow regime is important for many aspects of aquatic ecological health including water quality, energy sources, physical habitat, and biotic interactions (Table 16). Not only do these facets of the natural flow regime sustain different ecological niches in a system, but each species in a riverine system evolved based on the characteristics of the naturally occurring flow regime. How each component of the natural flow regime can affect riverine ecology, and why it is important to consider flow variability in river restoration, is examined in Bunn and Arthington (2002).

Goter et al. (2007) developed six flow scenarios to analyze potential ecosystem impacts associated with alternative water-uses for the Red Deer River. With the exclusion of natural flows, the scenarios explored were: present use of existing licences, instream flow needs (based on Clipperton et al. 2003), increased use of existing licences, new licences with high water conservation objective (WCO), and new licences with proposed WCO. Present use of existing licences and the instream flow needs determination (Clipperton et al. 2003) resulted in slight impacts on the aquatic environment. The increased use of existing licences, new licences with high WCO, and new licences with proposed WCO indicated serious impacts to the aquatic ecosystem with measurable declines in the condition or abundance of stream biota.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

81

Table 16. Instream Flow Needs to Maintain Adequate Water Quality for the Protection of Mainstem Fisheries Have Been Determined for Most of the Red Deer River (Clipperton et al., 2003).

Reach Minimum inflow needs (m3 sec-1)

Winter

(weeks 1-11, 51-52)

Spring

(weeks 12-24)

Summer

(weeks 25-37)

Fall

(weeks 38-50)

Dickson Dam to Medicine River 16 16-23 18-33 17-22

Medicine River to Blindman River 16 16-23 18-33 17-22

Blindman River to the Special Areas Water Supply Project

16-17 17-23 17-33 17-21

Special Areas Water SupplyProject to Drumheller

16-17 12-22 18-35 18-22

Drumheller to Dinosaur Provincial Park

16-18 17-23 22-40 18-25

Dinosaur Provincial Park to Bindloss

16-18 17-22 21-39 18-25

Bindloss to Saskatchewan border 16-18 17-22 21-39 18-25

6.3 Draft Goals for Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity

The conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is an essential element in an overall environmental management approach that supports the social licence for development and management of Alberta’s natural resources. Developing comprehensive plans to manage biodiversity clearly involves coordination between jurisdictions (e.g., federal, provincial, municipal). In the current draft of the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP), one of the strategies identified for provincial and regional outcomes (i.e., biodiversity and ecosystem function are sustained with shared stewardship) involves the review and consideration (as necessary) of integrated resources plans in the region into the SSRP (GOA, 2013). For the draft of the SSRP, the section on biodiversity focuses on indicators at a regional scale that are affected by land use activity.

The governments and Canada and Alberta have made a commitment to conserving biodiversity and achieving the sustainable use of biological resources across our diverse landscapes. Today’s Alberta includes working landscapes, and the Land-Use Framework policy acknowledges the need to balance environmental, social and economic considerations. The diversity of the Red Deer Watershed needs to be maintained, enabling it to contribute to national and provincial biodiversity goals.

The importance of integrated regional management is well established and a matter of provincial policy. In keeping with the need for regional integration, the proposed management goals, targets and indicators for aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity adopt the Biodiversity Management Framework proposed in the draft of the SSRP as a starting point (GOA, 2013). It is worth to mention that the biodiversity framework for the now approved SSRP is under development (GOA, 2014).

Recommended draft goals for biodiversity are provided below:

Terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity are maintained

Species at risk are recovered and key grasslands habitat is sustained

Key wetland complexes are retained and land uses surrounding them are managed with best practices

Areas important for biodiversity are identified and assessed as potential conservation areas

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

82

Biodiversity and healthy functioning ecosystems continue to provide a range of benefits to communities in the region and to the rest of Alberta

Long-term ecosystem health and resiliency is monitored and maintained

6.4 Draft Indicators and Targets for Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity

Key recommended indicators and targets for biodiversity are grouped in environmental, programmatic and social indicators (Table 17, 18 and 19, respectively; see Sections 1.4 and 1.5 for definitions). The indicators incorporate the Overview of Biodiversity Management Framework as found in the current draft of the SSRP (GOA, 2013), and the latest draft of possible indicators for Canada’s 2020 Biodiversity Targets (Federal Provincial and Territorial Biodiversity Working Group, 2013).

Key draft indicators are highlighted in orange.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

83

Table 17. Draft Environmental Indicators (key draft indicators are highlighted in orange). Indicator Target Notes

Amount of native land cover No net loss from current amounts, implementation of rangeland assessment protocol across the watershed

Recovery of previously disturbed grasslands unlikely, making the long term preservation of remaining natural grasslands a high priority

Percentage of total territory identified for conservation through land protection and land stewardship programs

At least 17 per cent of terrestrial areas and waterways in the watershed are conserved through networks of protected areas and other area-based conservation measures

The percentages of area protected are currently reported by the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) initiative (hereafter CESI indicators)

Total wetland area 100 per cent of existing natural wetlands are conserved or enhanced to sustain their ecosystem services, total wetland area in the watershed is increased

This aligns with new provincial wetland policy, and is a change from the Background Technical Report on Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Land Use (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2013). Explore conservation tools such as mitigation banking

Degree of landscape connectivity

By 2020, develop a spatially explicit assessment of connectivity. Implement best practices to maintain connectivity on all private land

Requires a species specific assessment of fragmentation impacts

Nutrient concentrations of rivers, streams and lakes

By 2020, implement the narrative statements developed for nutrient levels as in Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters (Alberta ESRD, 2014). Spatially explicit data is made easily accessible to the public

This is a CESI indicator and Alberta ESRD has a comprehensive monitoring system in place. Increases in nutrient concentrations can result in increased growth of opportunistic species, lowering the diversity of communities present, and reducing the value of habitat.

Species at risk population trends

Species at risk listed under federal law meet the recovery objectives of federal and provincial strategies

Data on population trends are extracted from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessments and the General Status of Alberta Wild Species reports

Number and location of invasive alien species in the RDRW

Development of an invasive species management program, including definition and identification of pathways of invasive alien species introductions, and a risk-based intervention plan for priority pathways and species

Requires collaboration with provincial programs such as the Alberta Invasive Species Council

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

84

Indicator Target Notes

Area and number of important and representative species habitats

Selection and ranking of appropriate keystone and indicator species to allow for species prioritization and spatially explicit identification of key habitat

Systematic gap analysis will be essential to target conservation effort

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

85

Table 18. Draft Programmatic Indicators (key draft indicators are highlighted in orange). Indicator Target Notes

Centralized, comprehensive monitoring and inventory program

RDRW has established a comprehensive inventory of protected spaces that includes private conservation areas, and an ongoing methodology for assessing their significance and value

Mainly driven by the province, ABMI and AEMERA

Number of commercial operations that incorporate sustainable forest management practices

The suite of indicators in the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) Criteria and Indicators (C&I) Framework is actively used to inform management decisions

Coordination between Canadian Forest Service, Alberta ESRD, Foothills Research Institute, and the forestry industry

Number of commercial operations that incorporate sustainable rangelands management practices

Rangeland assessment protocol is implemented and grazing is actively managed across the watershed to maintain healthy grasslands

Coordination between CPAWS, private land owners, and government agencies will be required

Number of commercial operations that incorporate sustainable farmland management practices

≥ 50 percent of farms adopt sustainable farmland management practices, and provide an increased contribution to biodiversity and habitat quality

Preparation of Environmental Farm Plans does not guarantee improved practices or positive effects on biodiversity. BMPs related to biodiversity would rely on data from the province

Number of commercial operations that incorporate sustainable aquaculture management practices

≥ 50 percent of all aquaculture operations adopt best management practices to reduce impacts on aquatic biodiversity

This indicator would require baseline research to assess current conditions

Number of land use and development plans that consider climate adaptation

Frameworks for monitoring and long term trend analyses are in place, explicitly incorporating adaptive management into watershed and regional planning

Requires collaboration with broader monitoring and management groups, latitudinal coordination in response to changing growth conditions

Motorized access to public land

Existing uses are identified and compiled in a spatial inventory. Recreational activities are clustered away from sensitive areas and access restrictions are installed. Public education on potential impacts is in place

Public participation necessary to establish preferred areas for recreation

Extent and duration of linear disturbances

A comprehensive reclamation program is in place whereby existing disturbed areas, priorities, and actions are defined. Best practices for future disturbances are established

Project specific, long term assessment of impacts. Requires industry participation and project approval conditions. Best practices must be habitat specific.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

86

Indicator Target Notes

Number of licenses with water conservation objectives (WCO)

Existing management plans for water licensing incorporate river flow WCO that scientifically determine sustainable natural aquatic ecosystems over the long term

Incorporate the estimated effects of river flows on the aquatic environment of the Red Deer River as developed by Goater et al. (2007)

Stream continuity Best management practices are established for stream crossings. Multiple disturbances are concentrated to one area. High quality stream habitat is avoided

Requires assessment of stream function prior to disturbance

Natural disturbance intensity, frequency and extent

A toolbox of BMPs with disturbances that mimic natural succession regimes is developed. Areas with homogeneous age structures are identified

With reference to historic patterns of disturbance, but may be influenced by changing environmental conditions (i.e., drought cycles, etc)

Number of ecosystem goods and services that are actively monitored and valued

Implemenation of anecosystem goods and services valuation program

Community and industry focus, cross-sector collaboration

Number of land management plans that incorporate biodiversity conservation strategies

All future land management plans explicitly incorporate biodiversity management frameworks

Municipality focus, requires cross-sector support and involvement of RDRWA. Indicators rely on the cooperation of all jurisdictions to review and report progress.

Incorporation of national and provincial biodiversity indicators with regional planning frameworks

RDRW Integrated Watershed Management Plan includes language which aligns with broader Red Deer and South Saskatchewan regional frameworks

Broad scale, community focus. Existing and proposed indicators do not address traditional or community knowledge. It is important to explore the possibility of developing an appropriate indicator for traditional knowledge, which involves discussions with Aboriginal Organizations

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

87

Table 19. Draft Social Indicators (key draft indicators are highlighted in orange). Indicator Target Notes

Degree of public participation in monitoring and preservation of biodiversity

Citizen science programs are designed and implemented. Public participation in environmental monitoring activities is encouraged. Information on biodiversity is distributed

Standardized monitoring programs require sound scientific and statistical methods to ensure that observations are stratified, and that observer effort is accounted for

Number of schools that have biodiversity activities in their curricula

Biodiversity is explicitly incorporated into all elementary and secondary school curricula

Combined effort between the RDRWA and Alberta Education

Percentage of RDRW residents who report that they take action to protect their watershed

An increase in participation of watershed residents in biodiversity conservation activities. Increase in public engagement events within the watershed.

RDRW co-ordinate with surveys such as the Households and the Environment Survey

Public perception of biodiversity value

Publish and distribute educational material that results in increased public understanding of the valuation of natural capital and the economic costs of environmental degradation.

Outreach efforts must be targeted across a broad demographic range, urban rural gradient, age and education

6.5 Management Implications and Recommendations

The following recommendations relate specifically to biodiversity management in the Red Deer River Watershed. Recommendations are listed under three main categories: reporting units, future needs, and key Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs).

6.5.1 Reporting Units

There is a need to adopt an adaptive and spatially stratified management approach to ensure that planning and reporting units continue to reflect natural and functional delineations and management strategies can be directed towards the most appropriate areas. Table 20 outlines a number of the primary characteristics and challenges that each unit faces today. As these aspects change, revisions to the unit boundaries may be appropriate to ensure that management units reflect an internally uniform set of characteristics.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

88

Table 20. Significant Characteristics and Potential Challenges for Reporting Units Used in this Report.

Landscape Units Characteristics Challenges

1. Upper Headwaters Forested land cover, mountainous terrain Pest species, forestry operations, oil and gas exploration, exurban development

2. Lower Headwaters Wetland complexes, mammal and bird diversity

Pest species, forestry operations, development, exurban development, oil and gas exploration

3. Central Urbanized Wetland complexes Ongoing urban expansion, development, oil and gas exploration

4. Central Agriculture High species richness Areas under sampled for biodiversity, extensive existing agriculture, oil and gas exploration

5. Dry Grasslands Species Rich grasslands, Large Wetland Complexes

Agricultural development, mining operations, oil and gas exploration

Lake Units Sullivan Lake Largely intact surrounding landscape,

minimal development Presence of Burrowing Owls and Loggerhead Shrike

Sylvan Lake Fish richness Existing developments surrounding the lake. Steep slopes may be sensitive to disturbance

Buffalo Lake Highest bird species richness Presence of Piping Plover and Sprague’s Pipit

Gull Lake Fish and bird richness Presence of Piping Plover

Gough Lake Large amounts of grassland surroundingthe lake, small development footprint

Lack of species observations, potentially due to low sampling effort

Reach Units

Reach 1 - Headwaters to Hwy 22

Headwaters of the Red Deer River, largely intact surrounding landscapes

Erosion, steep slopes, and activity in the area may impact water quality and aquatic diversity

Reach 2 - Hwy 22 to upstream of Gleniffer Lake

Wetlands surrounding reach Conflicted land uses may introduce issues with biodiversity management

Reach 3 – Gleniffer Lake to Hwy 2

High bird and fish richness Urbanization and riparian disturbance

Reach 4 - Hwy 2 to Nevis

Complex terrain, high fish richness Steep slopes, extensive agricultural activities

Reach 5 - Nevis to Morrin

Complex terrain Steep slopes

Reach 6 - Morrin to Bindloss

Relatively intact surrounding landscape, high species richness, high wetland density

Large area may require division or refinement for practical management

6.5.2 Future Needs

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is the designated ministry steward of air, land, water and biodiversity in the province of Alberta. In late 1995, the Government of Alberta committed to using the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy (Minister of Supply and Services, 1995) as a guide for conserving biodiversity and ensuring the sustainable use of biological resources. Currently, Alberta ESRD has developed two condition indicators (i.e., susceptibility of biodiversity to change) with regards to biodiversity: percentage of species at risk and status of Alberta species. Another important source of biodiversity information in the province is the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI). The ABMI has a structured sampling program across the province that has been the main source of biodiversity monitoring.

In the future, the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) will coordinate most of the biodiversity monitoring work. This program will be linked to other biodiversity

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

89

monitoring initiatives led by government or partners of government such as the Rangeland Health Monitoring Program, Forest Management Plan reporting, and the Species at Risk recovery plan reporting. Data also comes from existing monitoring done by ESRD (rare, hunted, fished or trapped species) or other organizations (e.g., Alberta Conservation Association), academics, and the federal government if applicable (GOA, 2013). With a formal announcement of its development in 2012, AEMERA was recently proclaimed as part of Bill 31 in April 2014 (aemera.org, 2014). Given the upcoming development of biodiversity management frameworks and associated monitoring programs, the Alberta government and the RDRWA should collaboratively establish monitoring programs for the watershed.

6.5.2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Research Synthesis

Opportunities must be available to ensure that small-scale, project-specific site assessments are compiled into a broader regional dataset. This will aid the planning and assessment process by ensuring that new data is collected in a consistent fashion, allowing long-term, spatially explicit assessments. Collaboration with land-use planners before disturbances occur will allow more rigorous BACI (Before-After/Control-Impact) comparisons, and increase the understanding of the ecological processes at play in this watershed. While individual projects may be conducted at the local scale, and restricted in the degree of assessment and observation that is feasible, the aggregate of many local-scale assessments (if conducted in a concerted fashion with similar methodologies) can add up to a great wealth of information for the region as a whole.

6.5.2.2 Research Needs

Indicators for biodiversity in this report were deliberatively balanced to cover at least one aspect of composition, structure and function of biodiversity in the RDRW (Table 21). In this process, many research needs where recognized. While some of these research gaps require additional efforts of data filling and compilation (particularly under a spatially explicit context), some of them involve different depths of statistical modelling (Table 22). One particular gap that requires attention is the lack of temporal analysis of patterns in biodiversity across the RDRW. Properties of biodiversity are very site or locally dependant. Caution should be taken during the extrapolation (or standardization) and interpretation of quantitative indicators of biodiversity health.

Table 21. Biodiversity Parameters in the RDRW.

Indicator Type

Land cover Composition

Wetland Complex Structure

Richness Composition

Steep Slopes Structure

Riparian Disturbance Function

Intactness Function

Table 22 summarizes a series of biodiversity indicators that should complement (and enhance) biodiversity management in the RDRW:

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

90

Table 22. Additional Biodiversity Indicators for the RDRW.

Indicator Type of Indicator Source Benefit

Connectivity Functional RDRW Intactness andLand Cover

Provides comprehensive assessment of the contribution of landscape composition and configuration to the maintenance of biodiversity across the watershed

Climate Functional Climate WNA Provides long-termassessment of variability challenges to changes in habitat suitability

Water Use Efficiency Functional MODIS satellite images Integrates carbon yieldwith water usage across different land cover types

Diversity / Environmental Sampling

Resource SelectionFunction

ABMI Raw datasets(non spatial)

Creates spatial-explicitand species-specific valuation models

Nutrient dynamics Functional Alberta ESRD Provides changingwater quality and cascade effects of habitat suitability over time

Macrophyte Diversity Compilation (terrestrial and aquatic)

Composition Various Fills gaps in spatialbiodiversity knowledge

Landsat Land Cover Time Series

Composition Landsat Better quantifies thehistorical changes in the watershed

Terrain Ruggedness Index

Composition Digital Elevation Model Provides a more refinedassessment of environmental complexity

6.5.3 Beneficial Management Practices

Beneficial management practices (BMPs) are common-sense operating principles that are simple and economical to implement. With respect to biodiversity, the purpose of BMPs is to guide conservation efforts aimed at protecting rare species and critical habitats, while enhancing landscape connectivity across the broader region. Managing a landscape for enhanced connectivity is based on Forman’s Indispensible Landscape Patterns, which posit that if certain “indispensible patterns” are strategically protected, one can conserve the majority of important habitats and ecological functions in the landscape (Forman, 1995).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

91

The following suggested BMPs are either documented through agencies such as the Alberta Energy Regulator, AER (formerly EUB and ERCB), AESRD, CAPP, other industry organizations, or by the authors of this document. Priority BMPs are highlighted in bold.

6.5.3.1 General BMPs

Consider cumulative effects and timing in development and operations

Maintain habitat and connectivity of habitat where possible

Replace or restore lost habitat

Restore connectivity by reclaiming disturbances

Maintain stream continuity (minimizing fragmentation of watercourses resulting from barriers at stream crossings)

Undertake pre-project planning and consultation with municipal staff to avoid environmentally sensitive areas

Provide conservation offsets to reduce impacts to sensitive landscapes

Minimize the duration and extent of linear disturbances

Maintain a diverse range natural cover types (forest seral stages, wetlands, etc.)

Include habitat and species protection in the guiding principles of new Municipal Development Plans

Retain a qualified environmental specialist to analyze, inspect, and monitor relevant pre-development, construction, operation and reclamation activities

6.5.3.2 Urban and Country Residential BMPs

Cluster development in areas close to existing infrastructure

Redevelop brownfield and greyfield sites rather than expanding into natural areas

Use buffers and corridors to link and protect sensitive habitats

Maintain natural/native vegetation that contributes to wildlife corridors

Use local native plants, trees and shrubs

Use natural landscaping techniques to salvage at least 20 cm of topsoil

Reduce soil compaction, stockpile natural soils during construction projects

Create narrow roads with infiltration swales

New residential areas should be developed using Low Impact Development (LID technologies for sustainable storm water management

6.5.3.3 Lakeshore/Lake Front Recreational and Residential Development BMPs

Reduce the disruption and fragmentation of natural habitats

Identify ecologically significant areas and propose mitigation strategies for development on lands requiring Area Structure Plans or Area Redevelopment Plans

Address critical ecological characteristics such as steep slopes and permeable soils as part of optimal site design

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

92

Seek to retain greater amounts of undisturbed land in designs for new communities in order to promote biodiversity and improve water quality

Build partnerships with neighbouring municipalities to work towards an integrated regional open space system

Identify and protect strategic parcels, blocks, and corridors that provide opportunities for source control of stormwater infiltration

Establish and implement a Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management initiative on all municipality-owned, day-use parking lots adjacent to lakes

Identify in the Outline Plan stage for all future subdivision applications: environmentally sensitive areas, kettle depressions, drainage courses, wetlands, and recharge zones located in sensitive groundwater areas

6.5.3.4 Agriculture BMPs

From Beneficial Management Practices Environmental Manual for Crop Producers in Alberta (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2004)

On Cropped Land:

Convert marginally productive lands for annual crops to long term forage production

Provide incentives for non-cropped areas

Add perennial or annual forages to crop rotations, and manage perennial forage stands for longer life

Use a flushing bar when haying

Delay haying near wetlands until at least July 1, and whenever possible delay until mid-July

Plant fall-seeded crops

Reduce or eliminate tillage and/or try to eliminate fall tillage to provide cover and food during winter

Use strip cropping rather than conventional fallow

Use integrated pest management

On Non-Cropped Land:

Retain existing natural areas

Enhance the habitat values of treed areas by adding productive trees and leaving dead trees

Avoid over-grazing of pasture land and delay spring grazing near wet areas

Enhance habitat value in idle areas by planting a variety of grasses, legumes and shrubs, and adding nesting boxes

Maintain the edges between habitat types

Store reject bales carefully to avoid deer eating crops in corridors

Stream fencing to allow recovery of riparian zones

Promote rotational grazing, and relocation of cow/calf wintering sites

Implement runoff containment and management

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

93

6.5.3.5 Oil and Gas BMPs

Use low impact installation methods for pipelines and other infrastructure to minimize disturbance

Develop site designs that avoid impacting intact native vegetation communities and wetlands (i.e. use existing access roads and disturbances)

Implement Low Impact Seismic (LIS) techniques for cut lines

Reduce access to cut lines

Progressively reclaim well sites by revegetating areas that are not in use

Use low impact techniques for constructing temporary access roads and block access to recreational users

Consider leveraging the Orphan Wells Program for contaminated sites and low production wells

6.5.3.6 Recreation BMPs

Avoid creating disturbances which allow access (e.g. snowmobile trails) to wintering ungulate populations and other sensitive natural areas

Restrict recreation access during spring thaw, breeding periods and during migration events

Require the use of established trails and linear disturbances for “off-roading”

Continue to restrict and enforce off-highway vehicle use in environmental reserve lots and other conservation lands

Restore areas damaged by recreational usage (e.g., ATVs, horse trails)

Promote and develop educational and outreach programs for co-habitation with wildlife

6.5.3.7 Education BMPs

Support ongoing, targeted education of public officials, civil servants, the development community, and the public to ensure proper understanding, support, and technical knowledge

Prioritize target audiences for BMPs adoption in order to make the best use of limited resources.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

94

REFERENCES

aemera.org. (2014). aemera.org. Retrieved June 05, 2014, from http://aemera.org/ AENV. (2008). Indicators for Assessing Environmental Performance of Watersheds in Southern Alberta (p.

64). Retrieved from http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7945.pdf Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. (2004). Beneficial Management Practices: Environmental

Manual for Crop Producers in Alberta - Wildlife Habitat. Retrieved from http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9425

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. (2003). Home - Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www.abmi.ca/abmi/home/home.jsp

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. (2014). Biodiversity Indicators. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www.abmi.ca/abmi/aboutabmi/aboutabmi.jsp?categoryId=2&subCategoryId=433&pageCategoryId=56&refresh1=t

Alberta Environment. (1999). Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta. Retrieved from http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5713.pdf

Alberta ESRD. (2005). The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2005. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/albertas-species-at-risk-strategy/documents/GeneralStatusAlbertaWildSpecies2005-Feb25-2013.pdf

Alberta ESRD. (2011a). Annual Report 2010-2011 (p. 118). Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/about-esrd/ministers-office/corporate-documents/documents/SRD-AnnualReport-2010-11.pdf

Alberta ESRD. (2011b). General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2010. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/albertas-species-at-risk-strategy/general-status-of-alberta-wild-species-2010/default.aspx

Alberta ESRD. (2012a). Percentage of Species at Risk. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/state-of-the-environment/biodiversity/condition-indicators/percentage-of-species-at-risk.aspx

Alberta ESRD. (2012b). Status of Alberta Species. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/state-of-the-environment/biodiversity/condition-indicators/status-of-alberta-species.aspx

Alberta ESRD. (2014a). Biodiversity. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/state-of-the-environment/biodiversity/default.aspx

Alberta ESRD. (2014b). Condition Indicators. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/state-of-the-environment/biodiversity/condition-indicators/default.aspx

Alberta ESRD. (2014c). Environmental Management System. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from https://landuse.alberta.ca/CumulativeEffects/EnvironmentalMgmtSystem/Pages/default.aspx

Alberta ESRD. (2014d). Performance Indicators. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/state-of-the-environment/biodiversity/performance-indicators.aspx

Alberta ESRD. (2014e). Pressure Indicators. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/state-of-the-environment/biodiversity/pressure-indicators.aspx

Alberta ESRD. (2014f). Response Indicators. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/state-of-the-environment/biodiversity/response-indicators.aspx

Alberta Lake Management Society. (2006). Gull Lake. Lake Watch Program. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. (2010). Buffalo Lake Integrated Shoreland Management

Plan. Edmonton. Retrieved from http://blmt.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/BLIMPS-Book-May11-2011.pdf

Alberta Tourism Parks and Recreation. (2014). Aquatic Invasive Species. Retrieved June 05, 2014, from http://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/science-research/aquatic-invasive-species.aspx

Anderson, A.-M. (1991). An Overview of Long-Term Zoobenthic Monitoring in Alberta Rivers. Environmental Assessment Division, Edmonton, Alberta.

Anderson, A.-M. (2012). Draft Site-Specific Water Quality Objectives for the Red Deer River Basin with Emphasis on the Mainstem.

Anielski, M., & Wilson, S. (2005). Counting Canada’s Natural Capital: Assessing the Real Value of Canada's Boreal Ecosystems (p. 78). Canadian Boreal Initiative, Pembina Institute. Retrieved from http://www.borealcanada.ca/documents/Boreal_Wealth_Report_Nov_2005.pdf

Aquality. (2008). Environmental Indicators for the Red Deer River State of the Watershed Report.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

95

Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. (2008). Environmental Indicators for the Red Deer River State of the Watershed Report.

Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. (2009). Red Deer River State of the Watershed Report. Report prepared for the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance, Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.rdrwa.ca/sites/rdrwa.ca/files/pdf/rdr_sowr_0_0_frontmatter(4).pdf

Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., Poff, N. L., & Naiman, R. J. (2006). The Challenge of Providing Environmental Flow Roules to Sustain River Ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 16(4), 1311–1318.

AUMA. (2013). 2013 Municipal Water Policy on Wetlands: Convention Policy Paper. AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. (2005). Sylvan Lake Water Quality Assessment and Management

Considerations. Calgary. Bizer, J. R. (1997). Project Level Integration for Mainstreaming Aquatic Biodiversity. Retrieved April 07,

2014, from http://www.his.com/~mesas/aquabiodiv.htm BRBC. (2008). Bow River Watershed Management Plan Phase One: Water Quality. Retrieved from

http://wsow.brbc.ab.ca/reports/BBWMP.pdf Brosse, S., Arbuckle, C., & Townsend, C. (2003). Habitat scale and biodiversity: influence of catchment,

stream reach and bedform scales on local invertebrate diversity. BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 12(10), 2057–2075. doi:10.1023/A:1024107915183

Bunn, S. E., & Arthington, A. H. (2002). Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Altered Flow Regimes for Aquatic Biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30(4), 492–507.

Bunnell, F. (1998). Managing Forests to Sustain Biodiversity: Substituting Accomplishment for Motion. FORESTRY CHRONICLE, 74(6), 822–827. Retrieved from http://apps.webofknowledge.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=23&SID=4DXtOSE1Ew3jVu2eirL&page=1&doc=1

Carpenter, S. R., Ludwig, D., & Brock, W. A. (1999). Management of Eutrophication for Lakes Subject to Potentially Irreversible Change. Ecological Applications, 9(3), 751–771. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0751:MOEFLS]2.0.CO;2

Casey, R. (2011). Water Quality Conditions and Long-Term Trends in Alberta Lakes. GOA Water Policy Branch. Retrieved from http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8544.pdf

Caslys Consulting Ltd. (2010). Riparian Inventory-Lotic Systems, Red Deer Planning Region. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Resource Information Management Branch.

Clare, S., & Sass, G. (2012). Riparian Lands in Alberta: Current State, Conservation Tools, and Management Approaches. Report prepared for Riparian Land Conservation & Management Team, Alberta Water Council, Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://awchome.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8e-3QdH48yU=&tabid=150

Clipperton, G. K., Koning, C. W., Locke, A. G. H., Mahoney, J. M., & Quazi, B. (2003). Instream Flow Needs Determinations for the South Saskatchewan River Basin, Alberta, Canada (p. 271). Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://ssrb.environment.alberta.ca/pubs/IFN_Main_Report.pdf

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. (2004). The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMO). Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www.caff.is/monitoring

Convention on Biological Diversity. (1993). Chapter 1 Status and Trends of Global Biodiversity. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.cbd.int/gbo1/chap-01.shtml

CPAWS. (2011). Conserving the Grasslands of Southern Alberta: Three Candidate Areas for Protection. Retrieved from http://cpaws-southernalberta.org/upload/Conserving_the_Grasslands_of_Southern_Alberta_Report_FINAL_June11.pdf

Cross, P. (1991). An Overview of Water Quality in the Red Deer River Basin (1983-1984). Alberta, Department of the Environment.

Davenport, T. E. (2003). The Watershed Project Management Guide (pp. 355–364). Lewis Publishers. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=N_qOQgAACAAJ&pgis=1

Ducks Unlimited Canada. (2014). Sullivan Lake. Programs and Projects. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from http://www.ducks.ca/your-province/alberta/programs-projects/sullivan-lake/

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

96

Environment Canada. (2013, February 23). Natural Areas Conservation Program. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEF1141D-1&news=FF339FA8-CB6C-421E-8686-FAA79A544125

Federal Provincial and Territorial Biodiversity Working Group. (2013). Canadian Biodiversity Indicators. Retrieved from http://rcen.ca/public-participation/canadian-biodiversity-indicators

Federal Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada. (2010). Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010 (p. 142). Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers. Ottawa, ON. Retrieved from http://www.biodivcanada.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=6F7EB059-1&wsdoc=A8E1EFFD-FCC0-4502-832A-359A50BAB5A3

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2004). Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), 557–581. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711

Forester, D., & Machlis, G. (1996). Modeling human factors that affect the loss of biodiversity, 10(4), 1253–1263. Retrieved from http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=19&SID=4DXtOSE1Ew3jVu2eirL&page=1&doc=1

Forman, R. (1995). Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press. Franklin, J. F. (1993). Preserving Biodiversity: Species, Ecosystems, or Landscapes? Ecological

Applications, 3(2), 202. doi:10.2307/1941820 Franklin, J. F., Cromack, K. J., Denison, W., McKee, A., Maser, C., Sedell, J., … Juday, G. (1981).

Ecological Characteristics of Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests. (Vol. 118). Retrieved from http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/5546

Friedl, M. A., McIver, D. K., Hodges, J. C. F., Zhang, X. Y., Muchoney, D., Strahler, A. H., … Schaaf, C. (2002). Global Land Cover Mapping from MODIS: Algorithms and Early Results. Remote Sensing of Environment, 83, 287–302.

GeoDiscover Alberta. (2012). Alberta Canadian Wetland Classification System (CWS) Merged Wetland Inventory. Retrieved June 05, 2014, from https://maps.srd.alberta.ca/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid={D2BD7E30-ABF8-47E7-8BEE-6129BB768FB5}

Girvetz, E. H., Thorne, J. H., Berry, A. M., & Jaeger, J. A. G. (2008). Integration of landscape fragmentation analysis into regional planning: A statewide multi-scale case study from California, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(3-4), 205–218. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.007

GOA. (1984). A Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes Revised 1984. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests/landuse-planning/documents/IRP-PolicyEasternSlopes-Oct2013.pdf

GOA. (2008a). Alberta Land Use Framework. Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/environmental/documents/Alberta_Land_Use_Framework.pdf

GOA. (2008b). Water for life: a renewal. Retrieved April 02, 2014, from http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8035.pdf

GOA. (2010a). Alberta Invasive Alien Species Management Framework. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/prm13262

GOA. (2010b, March 13). Wetlands Inventory Project. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.waterforlife.alberta.ca/01519.html

GOA. Weed Control Act (2011). Retrieved from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=W05P1.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779760602

GOA. (2012). Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2012-2022 (p. 94). Retrieved from https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse Documents/Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2012-2022 Approved 2012-08.pdf

GOA. (2013). Draft South Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2014-2024. Retrieved from https://landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse Documents/SSRP Draft SSRP 2014-2024_2013-10-10.pdf

GOA. (2014). Biodiversity Management Frameworks and Regional Plans. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/cumulative-effects/cumulative-effects-management/management-frameworks/documents/SSRP-BiodiversityManagement-Aug18-2014.pdf

Goater, L., Koning, C. W., Locke, A. G. H., Mahoney, J. M., & Paul, A. J. (2007). Aquatic Environment Impact Ratings: A Method for Evaluating SSRB Flow Scenarios -Red Deer River Case Study (p. 47).

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

97

Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/environmental-flows/documents/EFP-RedDeerRiver-AquaticImpactRating-revNov2008.pdf

Golder Associates Ltd. (2001). Final Report on Benthic Macroinvertebrate and Water Quality Monitoring of the Red Deer River in Fall 2000.

Golder Associates Ltd. (2005). Water Quality and Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring of the Red Deer River Below the NOVA Chemicals Corporation Outfall -2004.

Groves, C. R., Jensen, D. B., Valutis, L. L., Redford, K. H., Shaffer, M. L., Scott, J. M., … Anderson, M. G. (2002). Planning for Biodiversity Conservation: Putting Conservation Science into Practice. BioScience, 52(6), 499. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0499:PFBCPC]2.0.CO;2

Hawkins, C., & Norris, R. (2000). Performance of different landscape classifications for aquatic bioassessments: introduction to the series. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19(3), 367–369. Retrieved from http://apps.webofknowledge.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=4&SID=2DGmH12uZ6SkWFXKTeZ&page=1&doc=1

Heelan, B. (2013). Changes to Fisheries Act Take Effect November 25. Environmental Law Centre (Alberta). Retrieved June 05, 2014, from http://environmentallawcentre.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/changes-to-fisheries-act-take-effect-november-25/

Hegmann, G., Cocklin, C., Creasey, R., Dupuis, S., Keenedy, A., Kingsley, L., … Stalker, D. (1999). Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Hull, Quebec. Retrieved from https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/Content/4/3/9/43952694-0363-4B1E-B2B3-47365FAF1ED7/Cumulative_Effects_Assessment_Practitioners_Guide.pdf

Hughes, T. P. (1994). Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science (New York, N.Y.), 265(5178), 1547–51. doi:10.1126/science.265.5178.1547

Hunter, J. (2005). Geographic Variation in Plant Species Richness Patterns Within Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands of Eastern Australia. ECOGRAPHY, 28(4), 505–514. Retrieved from http://apps.webofknowledge.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=16&SID=4DXtOSE1Ew3jVu2eirL&page=1&doc=3

Jaeger, J. A. G. (2000). Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecology, 15(2), 115–130. doi:10.1023/A:1008129329289

Jenerette, G. D., Lee, J., Waller, D. W., & Carlson, R. E. (2002). Multivariate Analysis of the Ecoregion Delineation for Aquatic Systems. Environmental Management, 29(1), 67–75. doi:10.1007/s00267-001-0041-z

Jobs Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act. (2013). Order Fixing November 25, 2013 as the Day on which Certain Provisions of the Act Come into Force. Canada Gazette, 147(116). Retrieved from http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2013/2013-11-06/html/si-tr116-eng.php

Jones, M. L., Beste, J. D., & Tsui, P. T. (1976). Sylvan Lake Stabilization Study: Fisheries Report. AENV Planning Division, Edmonton.

Kingsley, L. (1997). A Guide to Environmental Assessments: Assessing Cumulative Effects. Hull, Quebec. Kirkwood, A. E., Shea, T., Jackson, L. J., & McCauley, E. (2007). Didymosphenia geminata in two Alberta

headwater rivers: an emerging invasive species that challenges conventional views on algal bloom developoment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64, 1703–1709. Retrieved from http://relicensing.pcwa.net/Documents/Resource_Agencies_PMEs/USFS - August 5, 2011/04_Enclosure III/FS_lit cited_1/20110805-5072(26145263).pdf

Landres, P. B., Verner, J., & Thomas, J. W. (1988). Ecological Uses of Vertebrate Indicator Species: A Critique. Conservation Biology, 2(4), 316–328. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00195.x

Lindenmayer, D. B., Margules, C. R., & Botkin, D. B. (2000). Indicators of Biodiversity for Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management. Conservation Biology, 14(4), 941–950. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x

Locky, D. A. (2011). Wetlands, Land Use, and Policy: Alberta’s Keystone Ecosystem at a Crossroads. Retrieved from http://www.albertaagrologists.ca/files/documents/1472_AIAGreenPaper2011.pdf

Mac Nally, R., Bennett, A. F., Brown, G. W., Lumsden, L. F., Yen, A., Hinkley, S., … Ward, D. (2002). How Well do Ecosystems-Based Planning Units Represent Different Components of Biodiversity? Ecological Applications, 12(3), 900–912. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0900:HWDEBP]2.0.CO;2

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

98

Mahamane, A. (Ed.). (2012). Diversity of Ecosystems. InTech. doi:10.5772/2276 Margules, C. R., & Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature, 405(6783), 243–53.

doi:10.1038/35012251 McElhinny, C. (2002). Forest and Woodlands Structure as an Index of Biodiversity: A Review. Department

of Forestry, Australian National University. Retrieved from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/BioMetric_Structure_as_index.pdf

Melles, S., Jones, N., & Schmidt, B. (2013). Review and Evaluation of Aquatic Ecosystem Classifications Worldwide (p. 80). Aquatic Reserach Series 2013-04. Retrieved from http://people.trentu.ca/nicholasjones/Review_and_evaluation_of_AEC_worldwide_2013.pdf

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press. Retrieved from http://www.maweb.org/en/Framework.aspx

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf

Minister of Justice. (2002). Species at Risk Act. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf

Minister of Supply and Services. (1995). Canadian Biodiversity Strategy: Canada’s Response to the Convention on Biological Biodiversity. Retrieved from http://www.biodivcanada.ca/560ED58E-0A7A-43D8-8754-C7DD12761EFA/CBS_e.pdf

Minister of Transport. (2014). Order Amending the Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order Amendments. Canada Gazette Part II, 148(9). Retrieved from https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/recent.htm

Mitchell, P., & LeClair, D. (2003). An Assessment of Water Quality in Gull Lake (1999-2000) (p. 19). Alberta Environment. Retrieved from http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5834.pdf

Mitchell, P., & Prepas, E. E. (1990). Atlas of Alberta Lakes. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. Moser, B., Jaeger, J. A. G., Tappeiner, U., Tasser, E., & Eiselt, B. (2006). Modification of the effective

mesh size for measuring landscape fragmentation to solve the boundary problem. Landscape Ecology, 22(3), 447–459. doi:10.1007/s10980-006-9023-0

National Status Working Group. (2011). Wild Species: The General Status of Species in Canada. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www.wildspecies.ca/home.cfm?lang=e

Natural Regions Committee, & NRC. (2006). Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta (p. 254). Government of Alberta. Retrieved from http://albertaparks.ca/media/2942026/nrsrcomplete_may_06.pdf

North West Department of Agriculture, & Environment and Rural Development. (2009). North West Provincial Biodiversity Conservation Assessment Technical Report, Version 1.2. Retrieved from http://bgis.sanbi.org/northwest/NWProvinceConservationAssessment.pdf

North/South Consultants Inc. (2007). Information Synthesis and Initial Assessment of the Status and Health of Aquatic Ecosystems in Alberta: Surface Water Quality, Sediment Quality and Non-Fish Biota. Retrieved from http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7861.pdf

Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conservation Biology, 4(4), 355–364. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x

O’Neill, R. V., DeAngelis, D. L., Waide, J. B., & Allen, T. F. H. (1986). A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems (p. 253). Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=Bj1cx_UeLK4C&pgis=1

O2 Planning + Design Inc. (2013a). Background Technical Report on Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Land Use (p. 111).

O2 Planning + Design Inc. (2013b). Background Technical Report on Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Land Use (p. 123).

Parkland Cummunity Planning Services. (2013). Town of Sylvan Lake Municipal Development Plan Draft. Retrieved from http://www.sylvanlake.ca/uploads/pdf/planning_and_development/JULY_2013_DRAFT_MDP.pdf

Parks Canada. (2009, February 24). Ecosystem Management: Inventory and Monitoring. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/progs/np-pn/eco/eco3.aspx

Parks Canada. (2012, March 8). Prescribed Fires. Retrieved June 05, 2014, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/mtn/feuveg-fireveg/dirige-prescribed.aspx

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

99

Pasari, J. R., Levi, T., Zavaleta, E. S., & Tilman, D. (2013). Correction for Pasari et al., Several scales of biodiversity affect ecosystem multifunctionality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(37), 15163–15163. doi:10.1073/pnas.1314558110

Péru, N., & Dolédec, S. (2010). From compositional to functional biodiversity metrics in bioassessment: A case study using stream macroinvertebrate communities. Ecological Indicators, 10(5), 1025–1036. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.02.011

Planned Environmental Associates. (2006). Review and Analysis of the Science Based Documents and the Associated Governing and Management Documents of the Sylvan Lake Watershed. Red Deer.

Poiani, K. A., Baumgartner, J. V, Buttrick, S. C., Green, S. L., Hopkins, E., Ivey, G. D., … Sutter, R. D. (1998). A Scale-Independent, Site Conservation Planning Framework in The Nature Conservancy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43(1-3), 143–156. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00086-8

Puckett, C., Jelks, H., Burkhead, N., & Walsh, S. (2008). Silent Streams? Escalating Endangerment for North American Freshwater Fish: Nearly 40 Percent Now At-Risk. USGS. Retrieved from http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2019#.U49Ak_ldV8E

RDRWA. (2011). January 2011 Community Workshop. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.rdrwa.ca/node/66

Rocky View County. (2013). County Plan Bylaw C-7280-2013. Retrieved from http://rockyview2020.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Final-County-Plan-May-24.pdf

Rood, S., George, C., & Tymensen, W. (2002). Recreational Flows for the Red Deer River, Alberta. Alberta Environment.

Rosset, V., Simaika, J. P., Arthaud, F., Bornette, G., Vallod, D., Samways, M. J., & Oertli, B. (2013). Comparative assessment of scoring methods to evaluate the conservation value of pond and small lake biodiversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23(1), 23–36. doi:10.1002/aqc.2287

Running, S. W., Loveland, T. R., & Pierce, L. L. (1994). A Vegetation Classification Logic Based on Remote Sensing for Use in Global Scale Biogeochemical Models. Ambio, 23, 77–81.

Schneider, R. R. (2013). Alberta’s Natural Subregions Under a Changing Climate: Past, Present and Future. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.biodiversityandclimate.abmi.ca/docs/Schneider_2013_AlbertaNaturalSubregionsUnderaChangingClimate_ABMI.pdf

Schwartz, M. W. (1999). Choosing the Appropriate Scale of Reserves for Conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30(1), 83–108. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.83

Shaw, R. D., & Anderson, A.-M. (1994). The Effect of Dickson Dam on Water Quality and Zoobenthos of the Red Deer River (p. 74). Alberta Environment Protection, Edmonton, Alberta.

Smith, R. S. (2003). The Use of Water Quality Indicators in the Assessment of Cumulative Environmental Effects in the Bow and Red Deer River Basins. University of Alberta.

Snelder, T., Cattaneo, F., Suren, A., & Biggs, B. (2004). Is the River Environment Classification an Improved Landscape-Scale Classification of Rivers? Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23(3), 580–598. doi:10.1899/0887-3593(2004)0232.0.CO;2

Species at Risk Public Registry. (2006, August 9). Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/strategy/accord_text_e.cfm

Spellerberg, I. F. (2005). Monitoring Ecological Change (Second.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books/about/Monitoring_Ecological_Change.html?id=68ap9hdp8D8C&pgis=1

Talley, D. M., Huxel, G. R., & Holyoak, M. (2006). Connectivity at the Land-Water Interface (p. 33). Retrieved from http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/holyoak/mhpubs/talley_et_al_connectivity_book_ch_2006.pdf

The City of Red Deer. (2008). The City of Red Deer Municipal Development Plan. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.reddeer.ca/NR/rdonlyres/BD352D91-F2D8-4D66-85BB-6683D15D695E/0/MunicipalDevelopmentPlanadoptedJune10201334042008.pdf

The Redpath Museum. (2014). Canadian Biodiversity Web Site. Retrieved April 09, 2014, from http://canadianbiodiversity.mcgill.ca/english/index.htm

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

100

Theobald, D. M., Reed, S. E., Fields, K., & Soulé, M. (2012). Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conservation Letters, 5(2), 123–133. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00218.x

Tucker, G. (2005). Biodiversity Evaluation Methods. In D. Hill, M. Fasham, G. Tucker, M. Shewry, & P. Shaw (Eds.), Handbook of Biodiversity Methods: Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring (p. 573). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books/about/Handbook_of_Biodiversity_Methods.html?id=9Jspmhkyex4C&pgis=1

UNEP. (2014). What is Biodiversity? Retrieved April 07, 2014, from http://www.unep-wcmc.org/what-is-biodiversity_50.html

United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). The State of the Planet’s Biodiversity. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.unep.org/wed/2010/english/biodiversity.asp

USEPA. (2008). Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters. Retrieved April 02, 2014, from http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/2008_04_18_NPS_watershed_handbook_handbook.pdf

Van Tighem, K. (1993). Alberta’s Endangered Species: Keeping the Wild in the West. Borealis, 1(4). Vold, T., & Buffet, D. A. (Eds.). (2008). Ecological Concepts, Principles and Applications to Conservation,

BC (p. 36). Retrieved from http://www.biodiversitybc.org/assets/pressReleases/BBCPrinciplesWEB.pdf

Wheatland County. (2012). Alberta Invasive Plant Identification Guide. Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/Weed_Identification_Book.pdf

Williams Engineering Canada Inc. (2010). Gull Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. Lacombe County, Ponoka County, Summer Village of Gull Lake, Summer Village of Parlkand Beach. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/ppina/Downloads/Gull Lake IDP (final).pdf

LIST OF ACRONYMS ABMI Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute

ACIMS Alberta Conservation Information Management System

AEH Aquatic Ecosystem Health

AEMERA Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency Alberta ESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

AUMA Alberta Urban Municipalities Association

AVI Alberta Vegetation Inventory

BACI Before-After/Control-Impact

BMP Beneficial management Practices

CBC cross-boundary cut procedure

CBMP Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program

CCFM Canadian Council of Forest Ministers

CCG Canadian Coast Guard

CESI Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

CPVI Central Parkland Vegetation Inventory

DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans

DO Dissolved Oxygen

FWMIS Fisheries & Wildlife Management Information System

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GVI Grassland Vegetation Inventory

IBI Index of Biological Integrity

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

101

IWMP Integrated Watershed Management Plan

LIS Low Impact Seismic

LUF Land-use Framework

Meff Effective Mesh Size

NPVI Native Prairie Vegetation Inventory

NWPA Navigable Waters Protection Act

NWPP Navigable Waters Protection Program

O2 O2 Planning + Design Inc.

RDRW Red Deer River Watershed

RDRWA Red Deer River Watershed Alliance

RENEW Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife

SOW State of the Watershed Report

SSRP South Saskatchewan Regional Plan

TAC Technical Advisory Committee

WCO water conservation objective

WPAC Watershed Planning and Advisory Council

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

102

GLOSSARY

Abiotic Nonliving, as in abiotic factor, which is a nonliving physical and chemical attributeof a system

Abundance

Species abundance is the number of individuals per species, and relativeabundance refers to the evenness of distribution of individuals among species in a community

Afforestation Establishment of forest on land that has not supported forest under currentclimate conditions

Allele A variant form of a gene

Biodiversity The diversity, or variety, of plants and animals and other living things in aparticular area or region

Biodiversity management unit An ecosystem-based classificatory scheme for managing biodiversity

Biotic Pertains to a living thing (such as plant, animal, fungus, etc.) as well as its products (e.g. secretions, wastes, and remains)

Connectivity The degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement betweenresources patches

Diversity

A measure of the diversity within an ecological community that incorporates bothspecies richness (the number of species in a community) and the evenness of species' abundances

Ecoregion

An ecoregion is part of an ecozone characterized by distinctive ecologicalresponses to climate as expressed by the development of vegetation, soil, water, and fauna

Ecosystem A community of plants, animals and smaller organisms that live, feed, reproduce and interact in the same area or environment

Ecosystem services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems

Endangered species

Any native species that faces a significant risk of extinction in the near future throughout all or a significant portion of its range

Habitat The location or environment where an organism is most likely to be found

Indicators Measurable surrogates for environmental end points of value to the public

Meta-population A set of spatially separated populations, which have some form of migration ormixing behaviour between them

Outcomes The desired future conditions that guide the development and implementation of an organization’s recommendations

Phenology

The study of periodic plant and animal life cycle events and how these areinfluenced by seasonal and inter-annual variations in climate, as well as habitat factors (such as elevation)

Rarity

The current status of an extant organism with is restricted either in numbers orarea to a level that is demonstrably less than the majority of other organisms of comparable taxonomic entities

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

103

Resilience The ability of the system to maintain its identity in the face of internal change andexternal shocks and disturbances

Richness The number of species present in a sample, community, or taxonomic group

Species of concern

Informal term that refers to those species that might be in need of concentrated conservation actions but receive no legal protection

Succession The progressive replacement of one dominant type of species or community byanother in an ecosystem

Targets Specific, quantitative values assigned to indicators that reflect a desired outcome

Taxa Plural from taxon

Taxonomic group

A taxon with all its subordinate taxa and their individuals, for example the taxonomic group Insectaconsists of all insects and their taxa

Threatened species Any native species that is at risk of becoming endangered in the near future.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

104

APPENDIX A: Terrestrial Unit Species List

The following tables summarize the species reported in the Alberta provincial ACIMS and FWMIS species observation databases. Federally and provincially designated species at risk are highlighted in orange. These lists represent only a compilation of recorded observations, and are not exhaustive. The absence of a species record does not guarantee the absence of the species.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

105

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

106

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

107

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

108

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

109

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

110

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

111

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

112

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

113

APPENDIX B: Lake Unit Species List.

The following tables summarize the species reported in the Alberta provincial ACIMS and FWMIS species observation databases. Federally and provincially designated species at risk are highlighted in orange. These lists represent only a compilation of recorded observations, and are not exhaustive. The absence of a species record does not guarantee the absence of the species.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

114

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

115

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

116

APPENDIX C: Reach Unit Species List.

The following tables summarize the species reported in the Alberta provincial ACIMS and FWMIS species observation databases. Federally and provincially designated species at risk are highlighted in orange. These lists represent only a compilation of recorded observations, and are not exhaustive. The absence of a species record does not guarantee the absence of the species.

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

117

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

118

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

119

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

120

RDRWA-Background Technical Report: Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity August/2014

121